User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 5

Archive

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. Thanks! Akradecki 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend

Thanks, I have been watching that. And thanks for running point on this; as you know, I get a little hot-headed this close to the problem. If you need me to do anything specific on this, just let me know.

I keep meaning to say this, but forget or procrastinate. On the J85 problem, I think the proposal to set it up like the CF6/TF39 page sounds good. I understand your point of view, but given your job, I assume that comes from a more direct knowledge than the rest of us have. However, all the verifiable sources we have seen tend to list the CJ610 as a civilian model of the non-afterburning J85, or at least a close variant. As they say, Wikipedia is based on verifiablity, not truth. If you can give us a source that backs up your position (one one the internet is easiest to check), then I'll support you 100% in keeping the pages separate. - BillCJ 06:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The source I'd refer to is print, not internet, and would be the tech manuals, but as I'm now a helo mech, not a FW mech, I don't currently have access to the pubs. I believe in 1)consensus and 2)picking one's battles carefully, and it's just not one that I want to work that hard on. Heavens knows, I have a hard enough time completing the projects I do take on here! Akradecki 06:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally understandable. I'm learning to pick my battles too, slowly but surely! I just wanted to let you know where I stand on that. I've worked with you long enough to know you have a good reason for your stand on this. Funny thing is, I think our first contact wasn't good, but we did learn to get along, and I hope to appreciate each other's work, as we do ask for the other's help at times. I've had some conflicts with most of the regulars on WP:Air, but we were also able to get past that and learn to work together. It's too bad it doesn't work out that way with everyone. - BillCJ 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's totally wierd about our "friend"...his initial edits to a couple of the WASP-related pages were excellent, apart from a lack citations. When I mentioned this requirement to him, he politely complied. But it was all down-hill from there. Too bad. Akradecki 14:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GE38

Check this out, and let me know what you think. You can respond on the Talk:General Electric CFE738 page. - BillCJ 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Of course, the first thing that struck me when I read that was the 7,500 SHP...and dreams of what that would do in my B412!! Akradecki 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOLOL. I'd love to put one in my Dodge Caravan, but I doubt it would fit. ;) Of corurse, Bell is considering making a new medium twin; maybe you could ask them to consider the GE38? :) - BillCJ 18:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't hold my breath...they've botched the 429 so bad that the lead customer, my employer, is having serious second thoughts. I doubt they'd do something that smart! Akradecki 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA! I don't seriously think two GE38s would fit in a Bell 214/AW139-sized aircraft, but it's a nice thought. - BillCJ 18:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on Google Books, and thought I'd share it - [[1]]. - BillCJ 18:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page 376 of the excerpt states that the CFE738 is a derivative of the GE38. The pages just before page 375, which detail the history of the GE27/GE38 family, aren't included in the excerpts. - BillCJ 18:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WASP Edit War

It has been brought to my attention that another user has commented about your decision to create an edit war on the WASP article. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Women_Airforce_Service_Pilots for your input before making any changes to that article. -Signaleer 19:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope I haven't butted into the dispute, I just spotted it and agreed with you and thought I'd try to give an outsider's point of view. Tom H 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know why the link to http://eclipseaviationcritic.blogspot.com/ was removed from the external links. The aviation geek community is quite small and I am squarely of the opinion that the growing dissent over the viability of this aircraft and company is worthy of discussion. Heck, the FAA is planning on the skies being darkened by their imminent success and we feel that it is worthy of discussion too. If there is a flat out policy against linking to expert blogs? Stan's page is actually pretty good. Also.. Richard Aboulafia of The Teal Group in DC concurs, never mind the legions of lesser aviation experts. Not to mention most, if not all serious 3000+ air taxi operators in the US don't see the end game with this airplane. If the marketing fluff is permitted in wikipedia, why not the enginner, pilot and commercial operator perspective as well?

Is it possible you'd prefer to see the debate in the article itself? I could write a nice paragraph that highlights the reasons why it is a great aircraft (timely, etc.) vs. the detractors who feel that their is essentially another Comet in our midst. Let me know either way. Concerned aviation geek. airwebster 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't the criticalness (is that a word?) of the link, it's that generally blogs are not used as links (see WP:EL for more), mainly because of the very temporary nature of blogs on the web and because blogs usually are more akin to an editorial, representing opinion on issues, rather than the kind of hard facts that we'd prefer. I run a widely recognized blog myself, and though it's considered authoritative in many areas, generally even it isn't allowed here. Please remember, that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and perspectives as you put it, around here called POV, are generally not appropriate. This is not a place to discuss the merits of a company or a product, this is a place to describe the rather dry facts of the subject. So, rather than discussing the merits of an aircraft or how it's marketed, what we want to see is basic history, descriptions of the aircraft, noting any unique technologies, etc. So how does that flesh out into an actual article? Well, if there are shortcomings in the actual aircraft, and if these are documented by industry media in verifyable sources, then sure, that's great to include. But if what we're talking about is pundits' views on whether the aircraft will be successful, then no, that's not what an encyclopedia is all about. I hope that helps. For what it's worth, the Eclipse was in my hangar for a few days during the flight test program, so I got to see it up close and personal. Whether it's viable from a marketing point of view or not I don't really care that much. What I do care about is that the Eclipse represents some pretty interesting advances in aircraft construction and technology, and anything that advances technology like that is definitely worth covering in an encyclopedia. The fact the Cessan and Piper are playing in this market makes things interesting, but I really wouldn't put too much stock in the industry critics and pundits...remember the lesson of the Cessna Citation: It was very coldly received by the industry critic (remember names like "Nearjet" and "Slowtation"), but in the end that product line has done quite well. Anyway, I've gotten way off the subject of your question, so if there's anything I can help you with further, do drop me a line. Akradecki 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I understand. Basically the problems with the aircraft, the investors, etc. is not pertinent to wikipedia. If you find that the worthiness of the matter gets to a deafening roar, I'd be happy to build a paragraph or two on the pro vs. con microjet folks. The key issue with this aircraft (and yes, I've gotten up close and personal with it too) is that it is a great innovation and design, etc. But there are simply too many folks seriously alarmed at the projections (did Citation predict hundreds or thousands of deliveries year one?) and other assumptions that seriously skew the financial viability of the company, let alone its practicality as light jet for air taxi folk. Perhaps a good gauge of how pertinent the debate is to run a Google search for Eclipse Aviation IPO - that will give some idea of the actual strength of the concern within the industry. You'll see the "critic" scores pretty high - and I think that is a function of folks who actually care and the public in general. In my opinion, the debate about its viability "is the story" with this aircraft, since if it succeeds, the naysayers will be documented thoroughly on the web. airwebster 01:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Threats

In reference to your threats on my talk page. Be my guest, go ahead and contact Fort Leavenworth and the United States Army. Good luck to you! -Signaleer 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, Sig ol' buddy, its actually just Bytes recorded on da net,not real bytes on da butt!Or as we say on the Avro Aarrow site: “Gord of the Wings”, chapter thirteen: “…It’s the Presssscious! Myyyy Pressssuicous! Screamed the Craffordgordon as the ARROW slipped deeper into the budget of Mt. Diefenwreakker…”

Hey I know its not good, but a cave troll gotta start somewhere…, right?.

Chaio! Opuscalgary 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think it's rather amusing that you're referring me to Wiki guidelines, though you flagrantly disregard consensus, guidelines and policy. You have a lot to offer, but you have to realize that this is a community, and that you need to work with others, especially the more experienced, established editors. Much of what happens here is based on respect for each other, and when you insist on your way over consensus, when you insist on forcing everyone else to view thumbs at the size that looks good to you on your monitor, that just shows a huge lack of respect and willingness to work with others. Please reconsider how you approach this project, and work with others, instead of taking an "in your face, I'll do what I want" attitude. Akradecki 23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

707/720

Your suggestion seems appropriate. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canard

Ah, my apologies, thank you for letting me know! I was just doing a routine sweep through several uncategorized pages, many of which are only apparently uncategorized because they were vandalized and lost their categories/templates. That's what the Canard page looked like to me, so I just did a quick revert and continued on. I'll go back and fix it to better disambig formatting. Again, sorry! NovaSTL (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fixed. If you'd like to make any other changes, have at it. I also did take a look at the editor's contribs, and I agree that he looks new and with a fairly narrow focus on editing. I've tagged accordingly. Nice working with you, NovaSTL (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C-12

Alan, if you've checked the history on the C-12, you've seen it was quite a mess. Then, back in June. someone decided to create an article on the RC-12 Guardrail. It had hardly even been Wikified since, so I decided to merge it without discussion. Whatever you can do to the article will be fine. If I don't like what you've done, I'll just continuously revert, ignore any attempts to discuss it, claim you're not actiing like an adult, vandalize your home page, remove thumb sizings from all articles you edit, call your discussions assine, and accuse you of not working with me :) :) (To any admin reading this, this is called SARCASM.)

As to our friend, yeah, I'd try to talk to an admin. I really don't know what they can do tho, but it's worth a shot. At least it would bring some others in on this, and go to show we're not the ones causing trouble. I pray it works out well. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so long as when you vandalize the user page, you update the userbox count :} (yes, I actually once had a vandal who was that considerate!)Akradecki 19:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The C-12 looks good. Considering that the late-model Super King Airs no longer use the "Super", we should definitley keep all the civilian types on the "King Air" page. But what about the C-6/U-21/T-44 types? They are all King Air 90s, but with 3 different series designators/numbers. Is there enough content to warrant a separate page for them, or do we keep them on the already-crowded King Air page? If we do move them, what would we call them? THe C-12 page is crowded enough, so I don't wnat to put them there either. Just wondering. - BillCJ 00:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct warning template used at User:ThomasFan13.

If you look at the warning I used, {{uw-vandalism4}}, you will find it is one of the new warnings. The UPV specific warnings don't exist at level 4 or 4im. So I used what I could. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try

Don't care, the issue is the name, which is correct as per many articles under the +cat, pls don't contact me any further on the matter. Headphonos 15:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have resolved it, barring intervention of an administrator. That is unlikely, since the article name now conforms to spec. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C-12 Update.

Alan, I have updated an outside link on the 1900 website. Rather than fiddle with your recent changes, here is the updated link at Elmendorf AFB for the 517th Airlift Sqdn. It explicitly refers to the fact that the squadron flies C-12Fs and -Js.

http://www.elmendorf.af.mil/3Wing/Groups/3OG/517AS/Webdocs/index.htm

Hope this helps.

Mikepurves 14:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with page moving

No problem! Glad I could step in. In the future, if there are every any project related issues that could use admin assistance, you are welcome to come directly to me. Ive been involved in the project for a while so I like to think I can sort things out. Thanks again for your work on that and remainig cool(for the part of it you were involved with)! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the offer! Akradecki 02:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.
Just kidding. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you got me...that sounds really familiar but I can't place the source....? Akradecki 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vito Corleone, The Godfather. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←Is that quote inferring that wikiproject aircraft is like the mafia and you shouldent mess with it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[with teeth clenched together]"Go ahead, make my day!" Akradecki 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Say hello to my little friend" -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

Here is a barnstar for your great work on aircraft related articles and stuff related to the project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...thanks much! Akradecki 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Oh, I didn't realize you were an administrator...oh wait you're not! ...check the policies on +cats the same article should not be in a +maincat and +subcat...what would the point of having a +subcat be ? i.e. I previously advised you not to post on my talk page, if it happens one more time, the vandalism post will be made, if you want to respond post your response here...Bye Headphonos 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will get involved here in a minute. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Chris. I should have taken the time and explained myself clearer...that's what comes of editing at the same time as formatting and cleaning up my pics from today's Lockheed CATBird flight test series...Akradecki 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming you are a pilot. What exactly do you fly. I left a nicer note on headphons page, i would have earlier but iw as talking to my girlfridn (I think she hates wikipedia but shell get over it). I would love for him to get involved al ittle more but I think he has a bad case of [{WP:OWN]]. I reccomended that he read that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a private pilot, but not actively at this point (2 kids in college, 2 in highschool, no money in the bank!). Professionally I'm an A&P, a field mechanic for Mercy Air. I maintain the air ambulance Bell 412 based at Mojave (and occasionally get stick time on MX flights). I'm also a freelance photographer and writer, so having a front-row seat at MHV gets me the opportuntity to shoot a lot of unique flight test programs. It'd be great if Headphonos came around.Akradecki 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←Sweet. As you probably already know I am working on my private. I had my first solo 3 weeks ago with about 10 hours and this weekend had the first solo where i did it all by myself (not with first half of the flight with the instructor). I have night flight and cross countries coming up! It is alot of fun, however there is no exciting action here to take picture of. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the solos! That's a great accomplishment! Not that I want to rub it in, but here's what I saw when I walked out onto the ramp when I got to work this morning! Image:Scaled-proteus-wk-070205-05cr-12.jpg. Scaled Composites White Knight is on the left, and the Scaled Composites Proteus is on the right. Akradecki 02:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proteus/White Knight

Thanks. Father and son. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic

Howdy! Actually I believe the phrase "Olympic class" is meaningless without a link. Giving the reader the class of the ship is pointless without linking to the namesake ship. Which means it is especially pointless in this paragraph since the Olympic is linked in the very next sentence.

Also, I think in the context of the first sentence, the phrase "Olympic class" implies to a layman that there is something special about Olympic classed ships. It sounds like a superlative, rather than just a description. Like: Bruce Jenner is an Olympic class athelete.

If you think the phrase should stay, I would suggest moving the link for the Olympic from the second sentence to the phrase "Olympic class".

Best regards, SECurtisTX | talk 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think it should stay, as it appears in a lot of literature, however I see your point and agree that it is best moved to the second sentence. Akradecki 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple changes

You mentioned on my talk page that you wanted to do a mass change from canard to Canard (aeronautics) for the appropriate articles. I wonder if you have explored using some of the tools used to do multiple changes. I don't know anything about them, but I saw that someone used it on one of my pages to correct a common typo regarding a name. You seem like a big enough contributor such that it may be worth it for you to learn it. The tool is called Wikipedia:AWB. Slffea 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know AWB, but maybe you can make a list of the specific articles which need to be changed, and have AWB only operate on those. It seems pretty clear which are aeronautics articles, so you could highlight and make them into a list. Also, it looks like most of the articles linked to canard are aeronautics related so maybe you could change every article there and then go back and revert by hand the few that shouldn't be changed. Slffea 07:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm...interesting thought...I'll have to dig into AWB deeper. Akradecki 14:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Airs

I had also wondered about splitting the Supers off from the King Airs. If we do that, then we really won't need to split off the military 90s (C-6/T-44/U-21). If you want, we can put a split tag on the King AIr article for Beechcraft Super King Air, and solicit some other opinions. I'm inclined to support the split, for the reasons you outilined, and because it would divide the current content just about in half. But if you just want to go ahead an split them, I'm game for that too. - BillCJ 23:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Why are you stalking me around Wikipedia ? If it happens again, I make the report and you risk an account block ! Headphonos 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to report me. My work here is always open for peer review, and I'm always open to improving what I do. If you are going to report me, though, please keep in mind that vandal-fighting is specifically excluded from the definition of "stalking". Like many other editors, I have a huge watch list (almost 1,000 articles) that I check frequently for vandalism, which is exactly what you're doing by removing maintenance tags that are there legitimately. Happy editing! Akradecki 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serial deletion of images

I noticed you reverted the blanking by User talk:144.138.25.81. I was about to do the same as this editor uses multiple IP addresses (may not be intentional, just a circumstance related to his ISP). At any rate, he's been blanking images continuously since December on several articles. Reminds me of your ongoing battle on the P-51 image. This character doesn't give a reason and doesn't stay around long enough to respond to warnings although I know I've gotten to him in the act now that he had enough of a pattern that his activity can be traced. I posted a summary on the latest IP he used and the last two as well and put short notices in the Discussion pages he likes to hit so often. I don't see a problem going to another image, but his action leaves the article with nothing. I was going to contact you anyway due to your P-51 edit war to see if you had a suggestion. Ideas??? HJ 03:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ, Going after an IP vandal can be hard. I know IPs can be blocked, but there is reluctance to do that because of the multiple user issue. Besides watchlisting and reverting, I'm not sure there's a lot that can be done. I'll invite Chris to share his thoughts on this. Which are the most frequently hit targets? I'll add them to my watch list, as I check in fairly often throughout the day. Chris: is there a way to check if multiple people use an IP, and if not, can it be blocked? Any other suggestions? Akradecki 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, these 3 are hit daily, but he's also been to the Aircraft Carrier article as well. As one editor noted, he doesn't seem to like any image with US carrier next to a Brit carrier...go figure on that one. If he had a better image, tthen that would be another story, but blanking over and over with no Edit Summary? That starts to cross the line into vandalism. Here's the three he blanks the most:

One thought is semi-protecting these articles so he'd have to register to lank and then if he did, there would be a consistent Talk Page to post warnings on. HJ 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I've added those three, and I'll wait and see if Chris, who's an admin, wants to do an sprotect. Akradecki 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Thanks for assist and counsel. HJ 04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this user change IP addresses or is it the same? If it is all the same IP address then it would be possible to do a little resarch and possible issue a long term block (there are some ip address with blocks up to 6 months). If multiple ip addresses are used, are they all in the same subnet? I.E. do they all start with the first 3 numbers and only the last number changes? If so, it is possible to medium duration range block that would deter them and maybye make them give up. I will look at the articles and semi protect them until I get some answers regarding this! Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 11:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did the research, it appears as though it is a class B IP address system they are editing from. I cannot range block that because it would block a total of 1,048,576 total IP addresses. I did however semi protect the articles (i think i set expirey for a week). If the issue returns, let me know and I will look into it again! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, thanks once again for your help! Akradecki 14:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutley no problem. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

understood

Thanks for your input here. I've kind-of had run ins with this user myself too. Funny thing is he contacted me first! I don't have the energy or time to pursue this right now, but may near the end of the month. I'll keep a passive eye on it while hoping he doesn't get involved with aircraft related questions I asked earlier this evening, even though I'm not at all an aircraft person. Funny how everything's connected on Wikipedia ... Keesiewonder talk 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Greetings. You seem like a very experienced editor, so I'm curious why you were changing links that were being redirected; usually we just let them be. Basar 00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I do as well, but there have been a few cases lately where I've dealt with some moves, and as a part of that, I've gone back and made direct links. For instance, Canard recently was moved to Canard (aeronautics), and instead of the original page just becomeing a redirect, it became a disambiguation page, so there were a whole bunch of links that needed to be changed there (the russbot helped with that one), because it's not advisable to link to a dab page when you can link directly to the actual article. There was also a canards redirect page, and I just went ahead and instead of leaving one level of redirects, since I was cleaning everything else up, I threw the few that went there into the mix, as well. I also worked some on making direct links after Scaled Composites Voyager was renamed Rutan Voyager, because I was asked to by an admin involved in the project. I'm aware of the general guidelines on redirects and the lack of real need for generally "fixing" all redirects that I come across. Akradecki 02:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut inbox on Shane and Siebold

Travel in space is not a requirement for the Astronaut infbox. The infobox has been used for many people who trained but did not fly in space, see Acaba, McAuliffe, White, etc. Rillian 02:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NASA nor the FAA doesn't decide who gets called an astronaut, they decide who is a member of the NASA Astronaut Corps and who qualifies for FAA Astronaut Wings, respectively. Per astronaut, the English word "astronaut" is used for anyone trained to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft. If Loria and Acaba qualify, so do Shane and Siebold. Regards, Rillian 13:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For similar reasons, the articles already had {{astronaut-stub}} on them. Rillian 13:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should make it abundantly clear in the article that they are astronauts in name only, and have not been rated as astronauts by the FAA nor have they flown in space. Our first responsibility is to provide clear, accurate information to our readers, and the casual reader will not be aware of such hair-splitting differences and assume that these two are actually licensed astronauts. Akradecki 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "licensed astronauts". I'm not aware of any difference between those who flew SS1 above 62 km and those who trained to do so but did not fly above 62 km in terms of licensing. Melville and Binnie were awarded the FAA Commercial Astronaut badge for flying in space, but their training was the same as Shane and Siebold's. Crossing the 62 KM limit makes a you a space traveler, training to pilot a spacecraft makes you an astronaut. Rillian 17:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are correct in a way, there is no such thing in the U.S. as a "pilot's license". We have Pilots Certificates and associated ratings (but we don't have "badges"....I have no idea where you get the idea of a "badge", as there's no such thing). Melvill and Binnie didn't get a "licence" but a rating added to their pilots certificate for flying into space. The other two did not. It wasn't something "honorary", it was an actual rating, so they are rated as astronauts, while Shane and Siebold are not. You can train as a pilot all you want, but until you take the checkride, you don't get the rating or certificate. For the astronauts, you don't get that until you make the actual flight. Though I didn't say this earlier, by calling those who aren't really astronauts such a title, you denegrate the work and qualifications of those who have accomplished it. Let's bring this back to wikipedia-land, though: you have to have verifiability for statements, you don't get to make up stuff yourself. NASA certainly doesn't officially recognize these two as astronauts, so that leaves the only other body who can officially recognize them as astronauts, and that is the FAA. If you can point me to some other official, verifiable source that has designated these two as astronauts, then I'll gladly concur with you on this, but until you can, we should stick with wikipedia verifiabilty guidelines. Akradecki 21:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QTR

I merged the original QTR article into the Tiltrotor page a few weeks back, as there was little content. Most of the material in the Quadrotor article is uncited, and should really just be tossed. I've had the unreferenced tag on for several weeks, and we should just cut out most of what's there, including on the QTR. - BillCJ 05:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the reason I even got here is because I was trying to see what was on WP already for the QTR, as I've got some hard, citable material about the wind tunnel test phase. I'll launch with it as a separate article then. Akradecki 05:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honeywell

So far as I know, if there is an eponymous category, the main article should be exclusively categorized as such. Paul 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, so long as there are no redundancies (i.e. the category and article are not both in the same category.) Paul 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thumb-ed image pixel width

The MOS seems to indicate that making them a set width isn't recommended, but doesn't infact make a rule against it. Good pictures deserve to be big, if you ask me. Since most readers don't know about setting their viewing preferences to a higher pixel width, by your logic I don't even see the point of uploading images with a width greater than 180px. Cornell Rockey 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't edit on a hi-rez, expensive monitor. Secondly, you're selectively quoting the MOS as well. Thirdly, you're way of telling me what to do and then saying thanks is very condescending. Lastly, you haven't answered my point that most people don't know how to adjust the pixel preferences. Cornell Rockey 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please respect what it says and don't add sizing unless it is for one of the three reasons given. > You've assumed I intend to ignore the MOS. Now I don't claim to have read all of WP, but I follow whatever I know about. I guess you'll have to excuse me for disagreeing with it, but I never intended to ignore it.
With regard to the MOS, the sentance "Specifying the size of a thumb image is in general not recommended:" isn't connected to the sentance where it says "width are considered appropriate include:" which to me implies that there are other cases, and that is isn't so much a rule as advice. Whatever, I don't intend to contest this, with either you or the powers-that-be. Cornell Rockey 00:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit, I don't spend time looking through my contributions at what happens after my good- faith edits, instead I tend to concentrate on the articles I'm trying speedy delete and where I've reverted vandalism. I hadn't noticed the revision, but I appreciate the explanation. I guess some of my snippyness regarding this comes from constantly having some new aspect of WP thrown back in my face in the form of a lecture, after thousands of edits and almost 2 years of doing nothing but my best to make this encyclopedia better. I feel that long time editors who don't realize they've been violating WP deserve a little lee-way, and a little more respect. Thank you for the clue in on the MOS that I didn't know about. Best of luck with your future wikipedia-ing. Cornell Rockey 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: your talk page is getting huge. another archive might be a good idea:) Cornell Rockey 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pot calling the kettle black at ANI

You may be interested in this. Keesiewonder talk 12:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. I just posted a note on Chrislk02's talk page and had already indirectly mentioned him in my material at the ANI. Keesiewonder talk 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beechcraft 1900

An over-active editor placed clean-up tags on the References and EL sections of the Beechcraft 1900‎. I removed the one from the EL, because even though its quite lenghty, it seems OK to me. The references definitely need some help, but formatting them is not my strong suit. Once those are fixed, I think the tag can go. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, small world...I know Mike from working on the 1900 and the C-12 article (not to mention he's a driver, and I used to work on 1900s for Ameriflight). Sure, I'll clean up those links, but I might not get to it tonight. Being that it's Feb 14, my daughter and my wife are expecting some pretty exclusive attention from me this evening! If not tonight, I'll take care of it tomorrow. Akradecki 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Enjoy. - BillCJ 03:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks good. - BillCJ 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alan. Thank you for the cleanup on the 1900 article.

I found something interesting at FlightSafety's LaGuardia facility: a Raytheon poster showing Beechcraft's type history. I amended my C-12J data based on it, and I will go back and look if there is anything on the King Air or Queen Air, and other military types as well. It would be tough to cite to, and since it is mounted on the wall, I can't run off with a copy. But the information looks solid.

Have a little information on Skyway's 1900's, too. I am a Check Airman at SYX, and yesterday the company announced that it is getting out of the turboprop business. The company also flies a fleet of Fairchild Dornier 328JETs, and it is moving to a one-type fleet, probably by the end of '07. We are terminating our Essential Air Service contracts by the end of summer, and that was the rationale for continuing to fly the 1900. So for us, soon the 1900 will be a thing of the past. I will miss the plane.

For me personally, I just got the call from Midwest to start class next month, so I am moving from "little brother" to "big brother". Don't know whether I will be working on the 717 or MD-80 yet, tho.

Mikepurves 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome! Wongaboo

Another Beechcraft orphan

I found the T-42 Cochise page today. Pretty pitiful! Since it's a variant of the Beechcraft Baron, I've proposed to merge it there. That page needs a little work to, some of which can be done at merge. - BillCJ 17:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I've dropped a note to that affect on the talk page. Also, could you read the note I put up on Talk:C-12 Huron regarding a revert I did and give me your opinion? Thanks! Akradecki 18:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C-12J2

Hi, Alan. Got your note.

The changes actually came from me. I was certain that I was signed in when I made the changes to the C-12J section; perhaps I was mistaken.

Frankly, I am not sure how to source this. I was at FlightSafety LaGuardia this week, and on the wall there was a large framed Raytheon poster describing all of the Beech aircraft from the Model 17 Staggerwing on. It described the C-12J variant of the 1900C, and the C-12J2 variant of the 1900D -- which was news to me.

Since your DoD sources don't confirm this, is it possible that the designation never took? I see that the Army Aviation site (not a government site but a commercial one), describes "Beechcraft 1900D" in Army colors (one of the pics is actually of a -C, the other of a -D). I have googled C-12J2 and come up blank.

Thoughts? Best, Mike. Mikepurves 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my talk page. Must have bumped the button in the wrong place! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what is a "Rouge Admin"? Akradecki 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, read Wikipedia:Rouge admin. As far as i know, it is some admin that are willing to push the boundries of policy (generally been here a while and will probably not be contested). I am not too familar with it though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, well that explains it. Nice essay, got a chuckle outa that. Frightfully accurate in describing some of my outlook and the adventures in trying to keep to policy and guidlines. Were I an admin, I might just have to sign up.... Akradecki 17:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotorcraft

Yeah, the icon needs changing, I'll look around for a good pic at that small size, if you know of one to suggest... The link is red because it links to where the task force should/will exist once moved out of Born2fly's userspace. I'll suggest he move it there now. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you're quick!

Thanx for formatting the C-130J-30 loss link. I am really good on content, but less facile when it comes to some of the editing architecture.

BTW, does Wikipedia have a template for national military insignias? We have about a half dozen in use in the C-130 loss list, but I haven't been able to figure out how to generate the appropriate roundels for the more off-beat air forces...

Mark Sublette 07:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 07:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

extra. rendition

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure I even have an opinion about this yet, just learning the facts, but I do have a strong opinion that the article should put facts before critiques! Kaisershatner 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of Interest?

I saw you're involved with the WikiProject Rotorcraft, and thought you might be interested in the article on the FanWing. I'm not heavily involved with matters aeronautical, but ran across an article on it about five or six years ago and the notion stuck in my head.
The Wikipedia article needs some work, but I thought it might interest you.
Regards,
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it, thanks! Akradecki 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Christian

Thanks for the support over here. The article was on my watch list for vandalism as well and I figured someone new needed to chime in who might (hopefully) be able to provide a more concise perspective that is in line with his beliefs as well. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic note

Re your message - Thanks WhaleyTim 14:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


your message

Akradecki 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey,

About the fact that from your opinion my accounting entries look more like a manual. It does, I agree, all my entries are about specific points in basic accounting or pure accounting definitions one can find only in an accounting manual. Whatsoever, I focus on what's the most difficult to understand for someone who starts learning accounting, unless someone completes my work (which are examples I've made up myself because I'm French speaker and my French understanding of accounting inspires me in making up English examples...).

However, I believe these accounting entries can be extended to softwares and ERP, that's why there is a link toward double entry accounting and from this page you can go to databases that are related to accounting. That's one point.

The second point is about you saying Wikipedia is not a manual as such. When one looks at computer languages here on this site, he can learn the basic such as printing "hello world" on the screen, but there are some stuffs that go further. I position myself there.

To be honest, it took me a few days to make up this arguments. I understand the idea of an encyclopedia goes beyond what manuals in any subject have to offer.

So I have no choice but to leave the final to you. As for me, accounting is the only knowledge I can write about in a way that is profitable (I keep learning...) and examples (my entries are not only examples...) are from my mind. You won't find these words anywhere else someone can prove he published it before I publish here on this site or challenge me about any of my entries on this site.

To conclude, my goal is not to publish all the accounting entries one can imagine of, just a few, easy to update from my experience in learning...

So the decision is on your side, I hope you will share your view quickly with someone else about this...

My respect for the being of this site.

Echo---pscbro 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)echo---pscbrp[reply]

Extraordinary rendition

Hello Akradecki! I quite agree with your recent revert on the article, which makes me again think that the best way to proceed, at least for the intro, is too keep to factual description of the process, without entering rhetorics and politico-ideological debates. I wonder what you thought about the draft I submitted, of if you saw any problems in it. We should really keep debates and commentaries, such as calling the term "torture by proxy", in a subsection (which could be divised into "supporters" and "critics"). However, I really think, although it is sometimes difficult to do, that first dividing facts & commentaries is a very important thing to do here, and that, at the end, the importance of facts largely precede commentaries (although clearly justifications of ER as well as critics are also historical facts which must be inserted, but maybe not in the intro). Cheers! Tazmaniacs 16:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject_Space reorganisation

Hi, it has been suggested here that the project WikiProject Mars spacecraft is to be depreciated. It's proposed that its duties be split between WikiProject Mars, and WikiProject Space Exploration, in order to increase the critical mass. If you have an opinion concering this, could you leave on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space/Reorganisation page, thanks, sbandrews 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metroliner

Alan, thanks for following up on the Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner. Based on our mergers of the Gulfstream military models with the civil versions, I figured it be OK to merge in C-26 page, which was pretty pitiful by itself. Thanks again for the clean-up. - BillCJ 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powered lift

Can you take a look at the Powered lift article. I'm about to taks an axe to it, especially the summaries on the Harrier, V-22, and BA-609 (they are summaries now!). We don't list descriptions of every type on the Helicopter page, so I don't think this is needed here. However, I don't know much about the FAA category (Born2flie confirmed to me that this category does exist), so I'm really not sure what should be here. Thanks! (Even if you found the page on your own this time too. :) ) - BillCJ 17:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

assessment template

The problem was that it should be used without the quotation marks : Aircraft-project=yes . I fixed it, so you can take a look at it now to see the result. Perhaps I should remove the quotation marks from the instructions? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait. I see the problem is that when no class is entered it doesn't put it in the project's unassessed category. I'll try to fix that now. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs)
Ok, it should be working now. "Category:Unassessed (PROJECT) article" now shows up. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it should be doing that as well now too. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 12:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TU-144

You added a note to someone on my welcome page.  :) Joe I 05:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-6 Texan II

Thanks for helping out on the T-6 Texan II merge. I found the CT-156 page from a link on the Canadian Forces Air Commamnd navbox. It's amazing the orphaned pages that are Wiki. I did alot of work on the T-6 II several weeks ago, and had no clue the CT-156 page even existed! Sounds a lot like the RC-12 situation we ran into a few weeks back. Maybe we should suggest something on WP:AIR to find orphaned and neglected articles. I'm not sure the best way to find them, but we could use a list somewhere of the ones that are found, so the project members can know where they are, and give them some attention.

On another subject, I've tagged the Air FOrce One article for a split to make a Boeing VC-15 page for the aircraft themselves. the Navy one and Marine one pages both deal with the name and its usage only, with coverage of the aircraft on other pages. (Marine Onne does cover the helicopters in some detail, but not AF1 on the VC-25.) I have a test page for the VC-25 up at User:BillCJ/Test Article 3, but not for the AF1 as yet. I plan to keep the history of all the planes as they are for now on AF1, but take out those details relating specifically to the VC-25s, like the Infobox, specs, etc.

On the test page, the Intro needs alot of work, as right now its basically the Intro from the AF1 stuck under the Intro from the Boeing C-32. I don't foresee any major ojections to the split, but so far have gotten no comments either way. Thanks for whatever you can do; I'm not in a hurry. - BillCJ 20:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Shane

Sigh. I don't really have the time or inclination to get involved in administrator action, but I'm definately frustrated by this too. Including the infobox isn't consistent with the discussion on Astronaut like Rillian claims, but it is consistent with the Astronaut article itself, as Rillian has it worded currently. Personally, I've never thought of people who haven't flown in space and aren't trained by a government space flight program to be astronauts, and I don't think most people do either, but I can't find a good source to back that up. It just seems to be common sense that this guy isn't an astronaut – but Rillian can be tough to convince. My editing philosophy is usually to cede disputes about things that aren't terribly important, and put my time to use on other articles. — Swpb talk contribs 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - your argument is very cogent, and Rillian is definately in the wrong on this one. — Swpb talk contribs 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're referring to re: "Unsourced content". I'm adding an infobox, not content. This same infobox is present on all other people listed on List of astronauts by selection. Why would Shane and Siebold be different? Regards, Rillian 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still unsure what you're referring to re: "Unsourced content". I'm adding an infobox, not content. This same infobox is present on all other people listed on List of astronauts by selection. Why would Shane and Siebold be different? Regards, Rillian 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So they can be listed as "Astronauts" on SpaceShipOne, they can be included in the List of astronauts by selection, but based on your personal opinion, they can't have the same infobox as everyone else in those categories? Intriguing. Best regards, Rillian 15:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wahkeenah put it best on the Astronaut Talk page "Unless there is an authoritative body that has official authority to define what the word "astronaut" precisely means, and can be cited, then the broadest possible definition would seem to be required. Wahkeenah 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)" Cheers, Rillian 15:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking his comment out of context. He also said, "An astronaut is a space-traveler. (So is a cosmonaut). Unless there is some Astronauts Union that claims some legal status that one can't be called "astronaut" unless one is a professional astronaut." In context, he was talking about professional verses passengers in terms of who gets called an astronaut. Doug Shane didn't even fly SS1! He's a great test pilot and a classy, honorable man. He'd be horrified to know that he's being given a title that's not his. Akradecki 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avro Arrow

Hi Mr. Akradecki, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro CF-105 Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Alan, that you for your note. Yes, I am extremely reluctant to actually quote from my own books. The one article where that has been an issue on Wikipedia is the Avrocar (aircraft) article where there are very few authoritatitive references sources on an obsure topic. I have done my best to support the article from other sources but since the majority of the original edit came from another editor, it was difficult at times not to refer to the material that was found in my books. BTW, thanks for your support in the awkward situation I have encountered in the Avro CF-105 article. Bzuk 10:38 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Alan:

If a rewrite of the CF 105 article is done,the thesis http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm

Gives original sourcing,& is "accurate"as a guide.

If we do not rewrite,I would suggest that we cut the "Political & Black Friday" sections right out of the Article. These two sections are embarrassing to wikipedia. Mr. Campania , as a source, is "special" at best.

Heck, Arthur Haileys' "in High Places" Novel, fictionalizing the Arrow cancellation, is a 'published work,' too. }:-')

I believe Bill & I have "truced".

regards

Opuscalgary 22:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, In regards to your question about UAVs, I actually just chose a random Aircraft Stub to work on. Thank you for offering to help me find a topic though. Currently I'm just starting off here at wikipedia and was looking for a page to start off on.

California Sublettes

I have a brother in Rancho Cucamonga who created the Nuclear Weapons FAQ page on the the web, but I'm not directly related to the gentleman you met. However all Sublette/Sublett/Soublet, et al, are kin in one family tree...

Mark Sublette 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Request

Sorry to take so long to get to your request. I had a busy weekend and was out sick monday. I am looking into things now. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris, I see he's done it again this morning, and also removed the unsourced warning I posted to his talk page (I've put it back). Isn't removal of warnings frowned upon? Akradecki 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yea, it is. If they archive it isent as much frowned upon. I will have a "talk" with them. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, you recently reverted a red link out of the CH-46 Sea Knight site and only stated "don't create redlinks." May I ask why and by what means do you believe that? There is already precedence of red links in this article in addition to many other articles. --Trashbag 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so now why delete the link to photos on Airliners.net from the Chinook site? Again, you are not being consistent as the other pages that you have removed red link (and not all of them mind you). Did you feel the link did not work appropriately? Signed: Lost in the Whirlwind of Deletions... --Trashbag 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I deleted a legit link, I apologize. Akradecki 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.20.34.20

I noticed you reverted User:76.20.34.20's additions on the Talk:B-52 Stratofortress as vandalism. I've been observing this guy for a few weeks, and he edits mostly Vietnam-era US warplane articiles. He has been inserting a lot of info lately, primarily from a book by Hobson (what he inserted that you thought was vandalism) on US activities in the war.

His major problem is that he seems to have no interest in learning how to use Wiki's proceedures to cite his additions properly. I do believe he has registered (I forget what name), but has gone back to his IP for the last few days. Other editors have posted links on how to cite on his IP userpage, but he has eitehr not bothered to read them, or otherwise ignored them. Since diplomacy is not my strong suit, I haven't directly approached him on the issue beyond my usual edit-summary mini-lectures. Just wanted to let you know what was up with him. - BillCJ 00:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, thanks for the heads-up - I thought he was just inserting a grafitti name. As far as I'm concerned, though, the usefulness of such a "citation" is next to nothing. Akradecki 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the Chris Hobson source is THE complete listing of fixed-wing attrition during the war in SEA...

Mark Sublette 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good resource, it's just improper formatting, I guess. Do you have it? Can you add a properly formatted ref for it? Akradecki 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I own a copy - although right now it is on loan to RMGillespie who has been working on the Rolling Thunder wiki article...

Mark Sublette 19:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 19:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roundels

Unfortunately, I don't know about availability of roundels. Most articles just use national flags (see UH-60 Black Hawk for example}. You might want to drop the question on the Aircraft Project talk page, though. Unrelated to that...is your father in the Southern California area? I was introduced to an elderly Sublette (can't remember first name or rank) by some friends at the Mojave Airport a few years back, during a Veteran's Day celebration. Just thought it might be a small world. Akradecki 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts - there were two Sublette families bumping around the USAF when my Dad was in - we ran into them, usually responding at the base pharmacy for "prescriptions for Sublette"! The last time I remember encountering them was circa 1971-72 at the Norton Air Force Base dispensary in San Bernardino, California... That may be the Sublette you encountered...

Also - in regard to roundels - the Hercules has been used in both civil and military operation - I am using flagicons for the civilian registered aircraft, and roundels for the military.

Mark Sublette 07:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 07:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest

Thanks for previous help with Chilwell School. However I think your recent revert was a bit over enthusiastic - I was showing budding wikipedians how to help with "the task". I think you might have left it 24 hours as it wasnt vandalism. Congrats on 8000 edits and your recent barnstar Victuallers 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extra space

I removed the extra space between the last two paragraphs of Passengers on RMS Titanic. You reverted it back. But why? Is there a reason for the extra space? It doesn't look very neat, it looks like someone just stuck an extra space there. 72.16.224.150 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, interestingly enough, somebody else came along and deleted the extra line of space before the last paragraph of Passenger on RMS Titanic (EXACTLY what I did), and you have let it stay. So now you are inconsistent, undoing my correction without justification, not giving a reason on your own talk page (here), and now letting it stand when someone else made the same correction as I did. 72.16.224.150 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One, I've been away on vacation, and two, are you aware you're placing comments in an archived discussion? You're lucky I saw it. Try leaving comments on my active talk page. Akradecki 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx

Thanks for the welcome in my talk page =) Chofo1979 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EC-18 ARIA

There seems to have some confusion regarding the EC-18B ARIA. It was origianlly part of the "ARIA" page, but most of the page dealt with the EC-135N/E aircraft used for that mission. We merged the ARIA page into the EC-135 article, and and now the links in the C-137 Stratoliner for the EC-18B end up in the EC-135 article. Some changed the EC-18 link today to Boeing 707. Since there is no text in the EC-135 page describing the EC-18, I think maybe we should find a blurb on it (and the C-18 too), and put thatg in the C-137 article for now, with the C-18/EC-18 links redirecting there. THoughts? - BillCJ 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I knew there was a link I'd missed a while back. I've redirected it to Boeing_707#Military, where all the C-18 variants are currently listed. I did this mainly to make them all consistent; I have no objection to putting the info on the C-137 page and make that one the central repository for the military 707 variants. Akradecki 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell 204/205

Do you have any pics of Bell 204s or 205s in civilian colors? You can place them on User:BillCJ/Test Article 3‎ if you have any. I'm not in any hurry, since I'll probably have to write text for the civil models. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does County Fire Dept colors count as civilian? I think Kern Co.'s gorgeous ship is a 205...will double check. Akradecki 13:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Never mind...just found out that it's an old H model. Akradecki 13:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By civilian, I mean non-military. I think we could include former military models in civilian service in the article, at least a brief text mention, at least enough to justify a few pretty pics. - BillCJ 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Helitack 408 was, afterall, rebuilt to 205 standards. Also, you might want to consider including the B210 in the article. If you're not familiar with it, it's the current "production" civilian version. Essentially, Bell is taking old H-model airframes, completely disassemblying them and rebuilding them as "new" FAA-certificated aircraft. The main difference between the 205 and 210 is that the 210 uses the 212 rotor system. Akradecki 17:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]