User talk:Mikepurves

Welcome[edit]

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
You can experiment in the test area.
You can get help at the Help Desk
Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article

Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 19:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beechcraft 1900 article[edit]

Thanks for the kind words. I saw the request for peer review and thought I might be able to help a little. You and the other contributors had put together so much good information; what I was doing was easy compared to that effort. I didn't quite get through the whole article last night; I'm still going to look at the Performance and Airlines/operators sections, within the next day or two. I think it would be nice to split the powerplant and propeller information into the sections on the particular models, but I left that for later. Happy editing! SkipperPilot 02:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1900 note[edit]

Thanks for dropping the note over on my talk page...sure, I'm happy to help (especially since I'm an old 1900 hand myself, maintenance side, though, Amflight for 9 years - I helped design and get FAA-approved the "Amerifreighter" cargo conversion). First off, the image...it's a fair-use image, so it will probably get removed at some point, because it doesn't really meet fair-use criteria...I'm sure a similar free image can be found...you can even shoot one yourself next time you're in the front office. Second, there's no problem at all with using the AFM as a resource, just footnote it like you would any other source. I'd suggest a footnote at the end of each paragraph that has substantial info from the AFM. If you're not familiar with footnoting, the first time in an article that you use a reference, you can name it, so you'll footnote text will look like this: <ref name="1900AFM">''full afm title'', Raytheon Aircraft Corporation, Revision date:XX-XX</ref> and the each subsequent time you add a foot note using the same reference, you can abbreviate the way it's coded by simply typing: <ref name="1900AFM"/>. Hope that helps a bit, and feel free to ask more. Akradecki 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USAF 1900[edit]

Don't know if this is worth mentioning, but the USAF has more than the UD serialed C models. They operate at least one earlier, UB-42, which wears completely civie colors and has civie reg N20RA. It taxied past me this morning at Mojave, I grabbed a pic thinking it was N-G's corporate bird, but checking the registration shows it's owned by the Department of the Air Force. I've uploaded the pic to commons, Image:Airforce-b1900-N20RA-070201-01cr.jpg if you want to see it. Akradecki 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I know that the military has other 1900s, including some -Ds. Didn't know about the UB, tho. I will work the pic. in, and find a place to comment on that. Interesting that although there was a designated UD series, many of the military 1900s are basically converted civilian a/c. Mikepurves 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed that, thanks for dropping it over on my message page. At the momnent, I'm upgrading the C-12 Huron page to detail all the variants. Akradecki 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the link...I've updated the page. Akradecki 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C-12J2?[edit]

Mike, an IP editor posted some unsourced info on the C-12 Huron article about the Army operating 1900Ds under the C-12J2 designation. There was no citation, and I can't find any info on the web or in my DoD sources about a "J-2" variant. I've reverted, but put an explanation at Talk:C-12 Huron inwhich I also ask if anyone can come up with supporting refs for the J-2. As you seem to be the resident 1900 guru, I thought I'd solicite your input. Thanks! Akradecki 17:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, If I'd known it was you, I would have contacted you directly, first! A Beech/RAC poster can be cited as a publication, something like "Beechcraft Time Line", published by RAC, and the date (most posters have printing info in small print). Did the poster give any info as to when the J2 entered service? My DoD pub is dated 2004, so if might be something more recent. Having a number after the second letter is actually non-standard for DoD designations, so the J2 might be a colloquial designation either within the Army, or within RAC. One question to find out is whether the Army owns the -D models, or if they're leased from RAC...RAC is big on leasing, and the military is getting more and more into leasing civilian aircraft (such as the Army's TH-67 helos). If they're leased, it might be an informal designation only. Akradecki 15:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beechcraft_1900[edit]

Is there any chance you can expand the references to give the source and date last retrieved - although this is probably only possible on the web references? Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beechcraft 1900 GA on hold[edit]

GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation and False Light[edit]

Please see discussion page at Defamation for response on False Light.Dr. Perfessor (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raising cabin alt. for operational reasons[edit]

Hi, I liked your comment on raising cabin poste lunch. What do you think of this statement in Cabin pressurization?

Nowadays, nearly all commercial airliners can maintain their cabin altitude at sea level throughout the flight if the captain sees a compelling reason to do so. In practice, cabin altitude is usually maintained well above sea level to reduce fuel consumption and the costs of fuselage fatigue inspections, which are driven by the number and depth of pressurization cycles.

I was once offered sea level by the Captain on an F27, I think, after diving. Ex nihil (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, List of jet airliners[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of jet airliners. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of aircraft. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of aircraft – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about List of jet airliners[edit]

Hello, Mikepurves,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether List of jet airliners should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jet airliners .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Vanjagenije!

I have responded to the request for speedy deletion on the List of Jet Airliners talk page. I have not removed the deletion tag from the page, but I now see that the tag has been removed by someone (without attribution or explanation). I do not know whether that means that the page is no longer in consideration for speedy deletion, or that my request for 5 days to develop the page is simply delaying the deletion consideration. In the meantime, I assume that the page remains a candidate for deletion, and I will continue to work on the page in the meantime. Please feel free to comment here or on the List of Jet Airliners page as you deem appropriate. Regards, Mikepurves (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a candidate for speedy deletion any more, but an WP:AFD discussion is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jet airliners. In the future, if you need some time to develop the an article, use your Sandbox or use the draft namespace and then move the article to the main namespace after it's ready. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I now see the value of using the sandbox to get the article going before putting a draft into public view. I will try to get this into near-final form as quickly as possible. Mikepurves (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my arguments for retaining the List of jet airliners page:

* Most members of the public have their most direct and most frequent contacts with aviation through airline travel. For the majority of those people, their travel is on jet airliners (a significant percentage also travel on turboprop airliners, and reciprocating engine airliners are largely obsolete). Whether a person wishes to inquire about the background of the airplane they fly on or compare it to other airplanes, or address a general curiosity, this list provides quick and easy reference to all jet airliners. I think the list will receive frequent views and provide useful information to the public.

* There is a pre-existing jet airliner page which defines jet airliners and provides a history of them. This list provides a useful companion link.

* There is a significant group of hobbyists, industry historians and airline professionals who find this information useful, as evidenced by magazines such as Airliners and Air Transport World, and websites such as Airliners.net and Professional Pilots Rumour Network.

* While a List of Aircraft already exists, that list is so vast as to be unwieldy, and it is incomplete. Furthermore, it does not provide much in the way of cross reference.

* Other, similarly limited lists of aircraft have already been established in wikipedia, including: List of civil aircraft, List of military aircraft of the United States, List of rotorcraft, List of experimental aircraft, and other lists too numerous to count.

* Why distinguish passenger jet airliners from turboprop airliners, reciprocating engine airliners and civilian cargo aircraft? The large investment to develop a jet airliner assures that the list will remain fairly limited and easily defined. Many turboprop airliners are easily definable as such, such as the Vickers Viscount and Lockheed L-188 Electra, but other turboprop aircraft are designed with multiple purposes including airline travel that it is difficult to clearly define an aircraft as an "airliner" or "not an airliner." For example, the Beechcraft 1900 was clearly designed to be a turboprop airliner. The Beechcraft Model 99 was designed for various utility purposes, including regional airliner. The Beechcraft Super King Air is primarily an executive transport and air ambulance, but one small airline marketed it as the "Beechcraft 1300." Is it a corporate aircraft or an airliner? With reciprocating engine aircraft the problem becomes even more difficult. The Douglas DC-3 and the Lockheed Constellation were clearly propliners. But was the Swallow, a mail plane that also carried two passengers, an airliner? Many argue "yes." Similarly, defining many aircraft as "cargo airliner" or otherwise can be highly ambiguous. Mikepurves (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikepurves: This is not a place to discuss deleting of the article. The discussion on that topic is located here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jet airliners. Any user may take part in the discussion, including yourself. You do not have to persuade me to keep the article, because it is not me who decides. I just nominated the page for deletion, but I cannot make a decision to delete. The outcome will be decided as a result of the said discussion, even if I disagree. So, you are free to go to the discussion and state your reasons. If other editors agree with you, the article will be kept. Posting your arguments here, at your talk page, will not have any effect, as nobody except me will read it (probably). Vanjagenije (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: Thank you. I will move the comment. I appreciate your courtesy and your helpfulness with the process. It is appreciated, particularly in a situation where you are not keen on the page itself. Many regards. Mikepurves (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of jet airliners - number built[edit]

Hi Mikepurves, Can you add references for the "Number Built" column on your article List of jet airliners? Where did you get those numbers from? Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Natg 19. The reference came from each aircraft's respective Wikipedia page. In a couple of cases, where the number of test aircraft were broken out from production aircraft, I combined the two numbers into a single total. I will also send this response to your talk page. Mikepurves (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mikpurves, thanks for the response. Since the references and information comes from each aircraft's respective Wikipedia page, I don't think it is necessary to provide separate references. Thanks! Natg 19 (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of jet airliners: category and format[edit]

Hi Mike, just to explain:

"Airliner" is a role - a sub-role of transport. The lists of aircraft types in any given classification are added to the List category for that classification. In the present case, this is for the airliner role and therefore Category:Lists of aircraft by role is appropriate. You can think of it as "lists of aircraft types by role" if that helps make it clearer. Category:Lists of aircraft by type is now a soft redirect and should not be used, as Wikipedia does not list individual machines of a given type.

The table format was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#List of aircraft of X Air Force/Military table formats, especially as related to images and consensus reached that List tables should not have in-table images, national flags, or images which run down alongside. Somebody had to update WP:AVLIST and that does not ban me from applying it. If you don't like the consensus mandate, please reopen the discussion.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Mikepurves. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]