Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:00, 2 April 2008

BilCat is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect his ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, he may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Archives

Archive 1 - 2006 Archive 2 - January - March 2007 Archive 3 - April - May 2007 Archive 4 - June - July 2007 Archive 5 - August - September 2007 Archive 6 - October - November 2007 Archive 7 - December 2007 - January 2008 Archive 8 - February 2008

KC-45

Wow, sorry about that. I was a bit confused since you edited immediately after I did so I thought you were doing something else. Thanks for setting that straight. Kevin Rutherford 03:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem! WP:AIR does tsome things a bit differently then the other articles on Misplaced Pages, and it takes awhlie to get used to that. A;so, it can get pretty hectic after news such as this comes out, with everyone rushing to update the articles. Truthfully, I try to read some defense news sites every day, but the KC-45 selection was late news, and I didn't even realize the selection had been announced till a few edits in the the KC-X page move circus! I hurridly put up {{inuse}} tags so I could get the KC-45 page started, and eve then we crossed edits a few time when I took them down. You've done well today for a relatively new user - Keep up the good work! - BillCJ (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

KC-30 Source

Info released today. — BQZip01 —  05:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC) ...but hey, I could be wrong... — BQZip01 —  05:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

...and it appears I am...

F-4 Operators

Bill, it seems I overlooked discussion and consensus. I've merged both pages due to mess with F-4 related articles. For solution... I think that for such significant, well known and widespread aircraft we can (should?) make separate articles not only for Operators and Variants but also for Operational history. With new Operational history of F-4 Phantom II separate article we can take some text from main article as well as from List of F-4 Phantom II operators making both articles smaller and keeping all F-4 related articles more logically divided. What do you think about it? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Refuelers

You said that the A-4 and A-7 were used as buddy tankers, so why didn't you remove the 4 other aircraft that were used for that role? When I created the category, I meant for aircraft that even were minorly used in refueling to be included. I can see your point though.Kevin Rutherford 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on Template talk:United States Military Aerial Refueling Aircraft. Let's try to keep all the psecific talk together, if possible. - BillCJ (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

A380

Hello BillCJ, please compare the versions, mine is not longer, and adds correct information. I undo your undo, but forgot to log in again and has no name on it, sorry, Cirrocumulus (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By longer, I mean the file is longer, at 79,104 bytes, while my revision was at 78,606 bytes - I wasn't mesuring the page legnth with a ruler. Second, my point was to make the section contain less information, not more. That is why we have daughter article, which I see you've been adding info to, and rightly so. We don't need the same infom on the main page too. - BillCJ (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: SH-2 Seasprite

Hi Bill, I agree that chunks of press releases are almost always unsuitable for articles and I've just added the article to my watchlist. Given that the defence minister at the time the decision was made to stick with this project last year is now the leader of the opposition it's inevitable that there will be political comments over the issue. Hopefully they'll die down in a few days. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All the M1s were delivered last year and the 1st Armoured Regiment is now fully qualified to operate them, so that program can't be cut. The defence minister and parliamentary secretary for defence procurement have recently made statements which heavily hint that the Super Hornets will survive, albeit mainly due to the high penalty clauses in the contract. In my opinion, the programs which are in trouble are those which introduce new capabilities to the ADF's ability to project power and haven't yet started. I suspect that the Canberra class large amphibious ships will be cut (either entirely or to one ship) and the Army should give up on its odd dream of operating tracked self-propelled artillery. Good riddance in both cases, in my opinion: the Australian Defence Force's current projected budget isn't high enough to operate all the equipment it has on order, and there's no real prospect of it getting an increase in the current financial and security environment. I'm a Labor party supporter, by the way, and would argue that they do a much better job of defence than the Liberals. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you're a Labor supporter, but I also know you can look neutrally at such things, that's why I've asked for your help on this, even though aircraft aren't your main stommping ground. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Irkut or Irkut/HAL

From the Irkut website the name given for the programme is Indo-Russian Transport Aircraft. Further details from the website The international project on joint development, production and sales of twin-turbofan Tactical Transport Aircraft envisions solidary cooperation of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (India), the IRKUT Corporation and the Ilyushin Aviation Complex (Russia), with their design teams to be merged into a virtual enterprise.''. So the design work will be done by teams from Irkut, Ilyushin, HAL with their design teams to be merged into a virtual enterprise. So I think the right name for article is Indo-Russian Transport Aircraft as stated in the Irkut website.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why change it. O.K since it's a joint venture and company name is necessary it will be made. Irkut/HAL ... Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what the name is - I care about keeping the history together. Please stop moving it that way, and allow an admin to move it properly. Please! - BillCJ (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was searching for an Admin who is interested in Aviation. I leave the job to you. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Rlandmann is a good admin in WP:AIR. I'm heading to bed, so I'm just going to add a {{tl}db-move}} header to the new page. It should be deleted in a few hours. - BillCJ (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

List of UH-1 Iroquois operators

Bill, I have problem with List of UH-1 Iroquois operators article and edits made by User:ANigg. He removes formatting what makes article quite senseless. According to MOS rules I'm using italics for terms in foreign languages - all are deleted. The same with structure of military forces - here is mine taken from reliable source:

• Comando de Aviación de Ejército
  • Agrupación de Aviación de Ejército 601 based at Campo de Mayo
    • Batallón de Helicopteros de Asalto 601 operates 16 UH-1s.
    • Escuadrón de Aviación de Exploración y Ataque 602 operates six UH-1s.

That how it looks after "cleanup":

• Comando de Aviación de Ejército
• Agrupación de Aviación de Ejército 601 based at Campo de Mayo
• Batallón de Helicopteros de Asalto 601 operates 16 UH-1s.
• Escuadrón de Aviación de Exploración y Ataque 602 operates six UH-1s.

I don't want to make revert after revert because it's senseless and is kind of edit wars. Unfortunately without admin's intervention this article is senseless. Can you help? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to talk to him. I've done some work with him in the past, specifically on the new AH-1Z Viper page. He can be a bit over-eager at times, but he's still a fairly new user. He came on board WP:AIR while you were away, and so may not realize he's dealing with an exprienced user. I'll see what I can do. - BillCJ (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This list needs some clean up, big time. There is Italics with Bold & non bold print. Some structured some not. Phases like "UH-1s operated by JGSDF being replaced by the UH-60 Black Hawk." in a list of UH-1 OPERATORS. Keep it simplified, no need to mention UH-1 everywhere. I would like to initiate a process of setting all lists of operators, of aircraft follow a simple understandable concise format for our reader. I know its fun to put in your 2 cents, but keep in mind the reader or student who may be getting information off this site. I think it is important not to over inundate people with to much (trivial) info So bill where dose something like the AH-1 operators stand? I'm not going to make any other major changes, to the lists but it would be nice to see some basic format for all.ANigg (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, sir!

Your essay The Really-Free Library describes exactly how I feel and what I've seen. I've even listed it under my favorite articles. Leobold1 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! Be sure to make clear it's an essay, not a mainspace article. - BillCJ (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Leobold1 (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

T-6 Texan variants

As requested please find T-6 Texan variants - still needs a bit more work. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

CAC Wirraway

Hi Bill, An IP editor and I are reverting each other over the inclusion of material on a court case concerning the troubled sale of a Wirraway over eBay. I object to this material as it is based entirely on primary sources (the court transcript) and seems to be a minor incident anyway, even if some reliable third-party sources can be found. This is especially the case as it concerns living people, so WP:BLP applies. Could you please have a look at the article and provide a third opinion? (this diff: concerns all the material) thanks, --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look and see what I can do. You might also post to WT:AIR about this, as we have several good editors who are good on WWII-era aircraft (BZuk, Milb1, Rlandmann (an admin in Australia), and some others), and they may have more familiarity with what this is about than I do (I have none). THanks for thinking of me! - BillCJ (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Forest Rights Act

thanks for informing... I'll take a look at it and try to improve it. My friend did a bit of work in this area, so I'll ask for his help if he ain't too busy. Cheers. /_@Sniperz11_edits 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

KC-767 Photo

I am completely sure that there is a better category out there for that one but thats the best I can think of at this time. There was another site that actually said that the weren't copyrighted. I'll find it and put it on the photo when that occurs. Kevin Rutherford 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted images are not something to fool around with. Big companies have big lawyers, and[REDACTED] is not as big as Boeing. THere are image help pages, and people who can help you do it right the first time. Please take the time to learn how first, THEN post your image. You'll need to use a fair-use rationle on the image you have posted. WP:IMAGES should be a good place to start. - BillCJ (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/corpid/ The photo was taken out of an image gallery so I should be okay with all issues. I don't think Misplaced Pages is considered commercial even though it is a legitimate business. Kevin Rutherford 03:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tristar pics

Bill, have a look at my Talk page for your reply (I do have more pics) - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The pics are now available at my Talk Page - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Operator Lists

Bill some of these list needs some clean up. There are Italics with Bold & non bold print. Some structured some not. Phases like "UH-1s operated by JGSDF being replaced by the UH-60 Black Hawk." in a list of UH-1 OPERATORS. Now I know this is the Proper English Grammer with regards to the Italics, but we don't have this on lists for the Bell 212, 412, F-16, C-130 etc... I would like to initiate a process of setting all lists of operators, & their aircraft to follow a simple understandable concise format for our reader (probably impossible). I know there are many out there who like to put in their 2 cents (including my-self), but keep in mind the reader or student who may be getting information off this site. I think it is important not to over inundate people with to much (trivial) info. Your thoughts PS Thanx for the Trans. Chinese for the AH-1Z Viper updateANigg (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You should take up the issue at WT:AIR, where it will get the most comments and input from the most people. - BillCJ (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pop goes the weasel

Now, I'm confused, I've seen Popular culture placed above the spec sheet on Wikiproject:Aviation articles. See: P-51 Mustang. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC).

No doubt, since you evidently missed the WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines. ;) Yes, we do have guidelines - they aren't policies, of course, but they are a better guide of how to organize articles, than other articles which don't follow the guide! :) - BillCJ (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also see: P-38 Lightning where the "See also" section looks to be in wrong spot, don't know if there are others, but I used the P-51 article as a guide, obviously, it was flawed. As I said once before, I work Blanche Dubois style, "depending on the kindness of strangers" (present company excluded, although I am sure we are both quite strange after all...) Bzuk (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC).

UC-26C

Thanks for helping with the article! --Enric Naval (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hi, Bill.

I'm not sure if the following is vandalism, or just an overzealous editor, but when I saved some fine-tuning of a paragraph of Accidents and incidents involving the JAS 39 Gripen, I suddenly discovered that User:Otolemur crassicaudatus had deleted almost half of the article! He claims that much of it was unsourced. I think there are better ways of going about that, for example there is the possibility of using "citation needed"-tags. What do you think about his actions? When I dicovered his deletions, I had already done a couple of saves, so I couldn't undo his update.

What do you think, should this be reported to some instance somewhere? I feel pretty pissed off. I've put in quite a few hours of work into this article (as it takes me longer to write in English than in Swedish).

Regards, LarRan (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Officer

Hi Bill,

This is the disambiguation guideline I was following in removing the disambiguation link on Officer (armed forces):

While there is no specific prohibition against it, adding disambiguation links to a page with a name that clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term is discouraged. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris". It is very unlikely that someone arriving there would have been looking for any other "Solaris", so it is unnecessary to add a link pointing to the Solaris disambiguation page. However, it would be perfectly appropriate to add a link to Solaris (novel) (but not, say, Solaris (operating system)) to its "See also" section.

It seems odd to place a link to the disambiguation page on Officer (armed forces) as the title distinguishes itself so completely with its qualifier "armed forces". Anyone searching for any other type of officer would simply type "officer" into the search bar and go automatically to the disambiguation page. As for your suggestion to ignore all rules in this case, I do not see how this rule "prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages," which is the only proper reason for doing so as stated on Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. If you disagree, please feel free to continue this discussion.

Neelix (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because the guidelines (not policy!) don't recommend this is no reason not to permit it. This is an encyclopedia. People often follow topics of interest that don't quite fit the subject, at least that's the way I've always read them. Someone reading on military officers might just decide to read on police officers to learn the difference between the two, of becuase the DAB link caught theire interest. Or perhaps they were searching a term from Google or another search engine, and selected the military topic from the search page, not knowing exactly what they article they wanted, and a DAB link at the top would help them more quickly. Remember, Gendarmerie officers are both police and military, and the could be confusing to some readers from countries whish have such officers like France. If allowing for this doesn't qualify as "improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages", then I don't know what does!

Anyway, I'll just place the link in "See also" instead, although I'm sure there's a guideline or essay (not policy, of course, as I never "IAR" those) against placing DAB links in that section somewhere, and someone will remove it too! - BillCJ (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your explanation. Placing the link in the "See also" section makes sense to me.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RSAF Bell 212

Hi Bill~! Sorry to trouble you but I really need your help on this matter. As the heading implies, the Republic of Singapore Air Force did acquired Bell 212 and not the UH-1N, so why can't I place it under Bell 212? It is stated clearly in a un-named publication 25 years ago and in a recent 1999 article stating that it was solely used for the purpose of airborne Search and rescue (encompassing both civil and military cases) missions around Singapore and parts of South China Sea. Sri Lanka's stock of Bell 212 was from RSAF, which had retired it in 1985. -- Dave1185 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a hidden note right uder the "Operators" heading. The relevant portion reads: NOTE: This list is for non-military operators. I know it's a bit confusing, but many UH-1s later served in civilian service, and many Bell 212s were ordered of-the-shelf by militaries. Rather than try and disern which models were actually ordered by which users, we are just listing all the UH-1N/Bell 212s by operator, rather than strictly by model and type. ANy military operator will be listed on the UH-1N page, while all civilian and non-military goevernment operators are listed on the Bell 212 page. Thus any auir force usages are on the UH-1N page. - BillCJ (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, that clears up a lot of thing. Will read carefully next time, still new to so many of wiki's hidden note thingie, its driving me nuts sometimes. Thanks and cheers. -- Dave1185 (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

EH101 RE:Translation request

Hi BILL, sorry for the delay, I did not log for a while here on en.wiki and I missed your last posts in my talk page. For the future I strongly suggest you to post in my it.wiki talk page in order to have a faster answer I am eager to give. Well! Let's do an actual point check on articles you kindly highlighted to me.

it:Aeritalia vs Aeritalia

Yes ! Aeritalia with Selenia (now Al–enia) were among the most important or THE most important Italian defence technology companies during seventies. I can easily translate the Italian article and put it somewhere out of ns0, ready for copyediting. I will create a new sandbox User:EH101/Sandbox2 as I don't dare to directly write in the mainspace before having made practice enough. I will appreciate your suggestions and corrections on the draft page I will prepare. Stay tuned.

Fiat_Aviazione and Fiat vs  ?

Fiat Aviazione article situation is a little bit more complicated. According to Avio website quoted in it.wiki article it:Avio (azienda) , Fiat special engine division was renamed Fiat Aviazione in 1976, later Fiat Avio in 1989, eventually ending in Avio in 2003. So it seems Fiat Aviazione article is naming Fiat Aviazione something known as simply Fiat during world wars. A good idea is to analyze better desired structure of Fiat, Fiat Aviazione and Avio articles we want to obtain at the very end. Be aware that It.wiki authors merged historical Fiat Aviazione data into it:Avio (azienda) which en.wiki equivalent lacks completely of historical info. Which article should inherit Fiat aviation history ?

it:Aeritalia_G-91Y vs User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Aeritalia_G.91Y

I have several sources on G91-Y, but unfortunately no 100% sure free pictures as I have no way to certify they were taken before 20 years ago. I quickly translated Italian it.wiki article (which quotes no sources unfortunately) in a third sandbox of mine ->this<-. No specific source citation was made, but data are correct AFAIK and I will look for sources confirming that. You can now merge data from my translation to your draft copy in your sandbox, then I could add sources confirming data there. How can we manage this multiple editors work ?

For all my sandboxes, visit my user page that will resume all of them. Bye --EH101 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Update. As I wrote before, I fully translated it.wiki article. Now, I added in the same sandbox a copy of your draft G.91Y article and I started to work on it fixing too much "brutal" cut and paste from G.91 main article and adapting the structure to actual Y version data. In the same time I have started the effort to retrieve sources that can confirm data on it.wiki article step by step. Now it's up to you to merge somewere, somehow what I am doing in my sandbox and then we can continue togheter article development. --EH101 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this for me. I'll try to do some more on them in a few days. On the Fiat Aviazione article, I'm not sure what to do about that one. I chose that name from a reputable source, and the history there too. The Fiat aircraft business definitely needs to be separate from the auto company page, but what else can we call the page that would be more accurate? - BillCJ (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

VFC-111

Hi, have you ever come across a free photo of a Northrop F-5N/F of VFC-111 Sundowners at NAS Key West, FLa.? Hope you are better, soon! Greetings - Cobatfor 16:16 UTC 18 March 2008

Sitara - Urdu or Sanskrit

Hi. Thanks for the attention you're giving... its really amazing that editors like you and S3000 are diligent enough to care about these issues, even though you don't speak the language. I hope the debate is solved.

Btw, I noticed that you're not an admin. You deserve to be one, and I'm sure the whole community would agree... I would like to nominate u for adminship, if you're willing, and I hope you are. Please let me know if you're ok with it. Thanks. Cheers. /_@Sniperz11_edits 03:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL... looks like chanakya really has u pissed off and irritated. Dont worry. He's a guy with strong opinions, and takes some time to convince. Better not to get irritated.... its self-destructive. There are two ways to break a rock... u can either blast it, or use a chisel and slowly carve. It takes a lot more time by the second method, but you dont blow urself up, and unlike the former, instead of a heap of rubble, you're left with a beautiful statue. Anyway, take care. Dont worry and lose your cool... I'm on this case. Cheers. Sniperz11_{C S} 06:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and the help. Also a good reason I don't need to be an admin, but thanks for thinking of me! - BillCJ (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess who's back?

I won't give it away but check out Kawasaki Ki-61. Write me if you guess who it is. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

I reverted its pooping. If it poops again, I'll just stop watching the page.

I have other outlets now for some pages, so I'm not too worried about WP's accuracy anymore. When Jimbo starts putting the accuracy of WP content ahead of his own financial portfolio, then perhaps we'll see some changes. (An old rule: when you don't understand why an illogical situation is allowed to exists, just follow the money - the people who can make changes won't becuase it will hurt their income.) Until then, I'm not fighting unarmed battles with IPs who get free reign, while those of us who follow the rules are harrased if we express any emotion about the status quo, or don't hold our nose right when reporting vandals/trolls/etc. Anyway, I've never contributed to WP financially, but the day they ban IP editing permanently, I'll send them a check. Not holding my breath though! - BillCJ (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Braves / Cy Young

I suppose there is a point to what the IP address is saying; yes, Maddux won 4 in a row. But the last I checked the 1992 Cubs were not the 1992 Braves. If they insist on listing his 4-game streak directly, maybe the other 1990s winners should be listed, with the Braves' winners highlighted. But the IP address is making much ado about not much. Baseball Bugs 02:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"much ado about not much" indeed! Well said! - BillCJ (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

NFOs with dual controls

Hi BillCJ; I thought one part of your change to the article on Naval Flight Officers gives the impression that NFOs in the co-pilot seat of the S-3 Viking are qualified to fly the aircraft. I thought the COTAC had a similar relationship to the flight controls that an F-15E WSO has. Can you clarify this? -Father Inire (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this the passage you're refering to?

NFOs differ from Naval Aviators in that they never pilot the aircraft in which they serve. Most Naval Aircraft do not contain dual-flight controls, and in the unlikely event that the pilot may become incapacitated, the crew is to eject, if possible, as NFOs are not fully-qualified to fly the aircraft. One notable exception has been the S-3 Viking and ES-3 Shadow, dual-control aircraft where NFOs replaced co-pilots.

I checked the history, and I didn't write that paragraph, and I don't think I even edited its content at all - I just moved it higher in the article. It seems to be referring to the NFO being in the co-pilot seat on S-3s, but it is poorly written. I really can't tell exactly what it's saying, but without a direct source, the only thing I know to do is to take out the confusing parts completely. I'm just an editor here, with no direct experience or knowledge, so I can only work with the material tha'ts there, or find a better source to work from. I will see what I can do to find some sources. - BillCJ (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Il-96

Hi there, that line drawing gives the best perspective of the plane of all the images in the article, I really think it should be in there, perhaps we can find another place for it? (although I dont see how it squeezes the table, it stays in exactly the same place with or without the image) What do you think? Acer (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I use 1024x768, and it squeezes the table. At 800x600, the image moves above the table. I'll play around and see where we could put it, but there's really not enough text for any more pics., so I kept all the real ones. That's why Commons is a good thing - overflow! - BillCJ (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wrath of TWOK

Replied here FYI. :) -Mike Payne (T • C) 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

OK. I am actually not sure about the correct use for that speedy deletion criteria anyway. But as soon as I placed it I realized that wasn't it! :P Sorry about that. — scetoaux (T/C) 03:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:MHcabin.jpg

Hi~! I'm sorry if I had disturb you but I really could need a hand here as I call to your attention with regards to this image, which is deemed as a posed shot for a Malaysia Airlines commercial advertisement more than that of a self-work. Question is, how am I going to put that into the image page and mark it for speedy deletion. Thanks and cheers. -- Dave1185 (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Federal Europe

I've opened Talk:Federal Europe#POV challenge as I think it more productive to debate it there than on our respective talk pages. --Red King (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref box on HAL Tejas

Hi Bill,

Needed a bit of clarification regarding this edit on the HAL Tejas page. You mentioned in the edit summary that it is according to ]. Unfortunately, I was unable to find this in both MOS and WP:Footnotes. Could u show me where this thing is... I've looked everywhere, but cant seem to find it. Plus, I dont really understand the logic for this. Is it because such a scrollable list will not render properly on some browsers??

Anyway, one good thing thats come out of this is that I finally read through the MOS... it was a long due thing on my part. Thanks for that.

Cheers Sniperz11_@S 00:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you got me on that one! I've seen it removed in the past by other editors (including on this page) with that reasoning, but I just took their word for it that they knew what they were talking about. There are many pages with far longer reference lists than one the Hal Tejas page, including aircraft pages, and they don't the scrollable lists. I'll ask around and see if there is a guideline or policy against it, and if so, why. If we can't find one, then I'll restore it back to the page. Will that work? - BillCJ (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a few discussions related to (not) using scrollable lists:

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Table (sortable?) vs bullet list: Not every system or browser uses the Java based sort function, which is the reason that scrollable reference sections aren't permitted.
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Attack on Sydney Harbour#Kirill Lokshin: The scrollable footnote box is, frankly, a horrible idea, as it makes the article unprintable. Even a collapsing NavFrame would be better than this.

The last comment is (apparrantly) by User:Kirill Lokshin. He would probably be a good person to ask for more details on why we don't generally use them for reference lists, and he may be able to point out a relevant policy or guideline also. - BillCJ (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.. that answers it. Only thing is what we'll do when a page has 100-150 refs. We should find a way of collapsing reflists so that it can be printed and used with Java... anyway, I'll leave that to the developers. Sniperz11_@S 11:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

US Military Aircraft Naming Conventions

In your 00:22, 29 March 2008, edit summary of C-130 Hercules, you referenced WP:AIR regarding titles of pages versus topic names. I didn't find relevant information specifically at WP:AIR, and the information I found at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (aircraft) did not indicate that a topic name would differ from a title. It's possible I've missed something. Can you direct me to the conventions you cited, or offer further information on this matter? Thanks for your help. ENeville (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's actually an "unwritten" convention based on the naming conventions. This is the general pattern found in the majority of articles falling within WP:AIR's purview, covering over several thousand articles. It's just the way things were done even before I started editing 19 months ago, and it seems to work best for aircraft articles. I don't mind explaining my reasoning and application of the naming conventions to the issue, and we can discuss the particulars at WT:AIR, and perhaps even reach a compromise with the project (one I may or may not agree with, but I will follow) that finds a middle ground between the two ways of doing things. Or you can just do whatever you want, especially if you will anyway! It'll save me a lot of wasted time arguing an issue I'll never win. :) - BillCJ (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We may be closer in attitude than you think. I just want a convention: a clear, accessible, rational, and consistent convention. Not interested in an argument. If there's an unwritten rule, let's just get it codified so it can be looked up. Then, whatever the convention is, I can point to it in the future with whomever and obviate unproductive debate. ENeville (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comment at WP:AIR Talk. ENeville (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rays Ballpark

Hey there! Thanks for putting that warning message on User talk:Justin Elza. This user, unfortunately, is trying to use WP for his own gain. I'll admit I have a differing opinion over the controversy he's talking about with this article, but I have not tried to push an agenda for the stadium on here. Those belong on blogs and message boards. You can see here, here, and here (as "Justin E"), that he is very biased against the stadium. If you check his contributions, you'll see that he has contributed nothing but to try and push his cause. I may have an opinion, but I certainly will not express it here.

It also appears he is harassing me via my e-mail now, so should we consider blocking this user? Is there any ground to stand on? EaglesFanInTampa 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Cox

Sorry about the slightly catty remark. Meanwhile, I thought I had too many things on my watch list, at just over 1,000. I've found that too many things on the list gets me into trouble. If you're more even-tempered, you can probably get away with it. As long as you don't value sleep. :) Baseball Bugs 05:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

XTB2C

If you want to merge with the -1, I've no sweat with that. Just post me back a link to the page, k? I'm going to export it to planespottingworld. Trekphiler (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Objection to vandalism warning

Hello BillCJ,

I cannot but object to the vandalism warning you gave me. Could you please indicate what articles did I "vandalize"? I did perform several modifications lately, but I would hardly qualify these as vandalism.

--landroni (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)