User talk:Petebutt/Archive 1

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For diligent creation of many articles, including PZL Bielsko SZD-7, PZL Bielsko SZD-10, PZL Bielsko SZD-11, PZL Bielsko SZD-12, PZL Bielsko SZD-13, PZL Bielsko SZD-6x and PZL Bielsko SZD-8. - Ahunt (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For amazing citation-fixing work on Glossary of USSR/Russian aviation acronyms - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft lists

Hi Petebutt and thanks for all the hard work you're putting into expanding these lists. However, you're also causing quite a bit of chaos through, I think, unfamiliarity with how Wikilinks work.

To make a long story short, whatever goes inside the double-square brackets - [[ and ]] must be the name of the actual page that you're pointing to; if not, problems can occur.

For example, in your recent edits to the Lockheed part of the list, you removed "Lockheed" from some of the entries. This means that F-4 points to the Phantom II and U-2 points to a disambiguation page. If you want the link to appear different on the screen from the actual page name, we use what's called a "pipe"; for example - [[Lockheed U-2|U-2]] will appear as "U-2" on the page, but take you to the Lockheed U-2 article (try it! - U-2).

Hope this helps! You might also like to check out WP:AIR, the WikiProject that exists to co-ordinate Wikipedia's aircraft content. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

On that subject- I've just rolled back your last text dump - it's full of broken links, bad formatting, and inconsistencies both within itself and with these lists in general. Please take some time to try and understand how wikilinks work and how these lists are structured. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page --Rlandmann (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Caudron C.230

Hi again - apologies are unnecessary - we were all new here once!

Thanks for the article on the Caudron C.230 - I've moved it across into the main part of the encyclopedia (you'd actually placed it on your "userpage" - a page where contributors to Wikipedia may choose to introduce themselves, saying as much or as little about themselves as they want.) You can read more about userpages here, and if you want to create one, just click on your name (in red) that you see at the top centre of your screen.

To create a new article in the main body of the encyclopedia, either click on a red link in an existing article or list, or put the name of the topic into the "search" box at the left-hand side of the screen and click "go".

And again, if I can be of any help, please let me know on my talk page. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Various stuff

Hi again - you're really getting the hang of things now. I'll continue to offer some unsolicited advice - if I'm bombarding you too much, please feel free to tell me to get lost! :)

I took the liberty of moving your "under construction" article from your userpage to User:Petebutt/Sandbox, which is the conventional spot to store such things.

A few notes from your recent contributions - these are all really formatting "nits" (with perhaps the exception of the links) - please take them in a spirit of friendly encouragement and as a "fast track" towards learning Wikipedia (and WikiProject Aircraft) style.

Sections
In many articles, you'll see "hidden" comments like <!-- ==Operational history== -- >. These have been left as reminders that if the article ever grows big enough to require splitting into sections, these are the conventional names for these sections (take a look at a major article like F-4 Phantom II as an example, and WikiProject Aircraft: Page content for the guide)

• the section will not become visible until the "<!--" and "-->" are removed
• in short articles, there's no advantage to using these; it's better to just leave them hidden - remember that we're trying to write encyclopedia articles in connected prose. One-sentence paragraphs (let alone sections) have little value here
• For experimental, one-off prototypes, the "Operators" and "operational history" sections are meaningless - just leave them out.

Context
You removed context-giving introductions from a couple of articles. It's extremely important that articles establish context right at the beginning. There are a number of different ways that readers may come across an article; therefore the lead should establish straight away the what-where-when, and that for example, the "Yakovlev Yak-25 was a prototype fighter aircraft built in the Soviet Union in 1947". Elaboration can (and should!) follow - but straight away, the reader knows what this article is about, and that this is not a car, washing machine, or something from Star Trek.

References
Please carefully distinguish between "References" (sources of information used to create an article, whether they be books, magazines, or websites) and "External links" (links to websites for further reading). If a website was used to provide facts for an article, it belongs under "references". I'd also encourage you not to provide links to the aviastar site - it's rife with material that's been plagiarised from published works apparently in complete disregard for copyright. I believe that we have a moral responsibility to avoid giving them any recognition.

Links

• External links should contain some sort of descriptive text - [1] doesn't really tell the reader very much, while RAF museum website obviously does. Descriptive text is separated from the bare URL with a space, thus:

[http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk RAF museum website]

• Be very careful where internal links point. Derwent, for example, could mean any manner of things, and the plain link [[Derwent]] takes you to a "disambiguation page". To link to the engine, you must link to [[Rolls-Royce Derwent]], or, if you don't want "Rolls-Royce" to actually show in the article text, [[Rolls-Royce Derwent|Derwent]] - only the part after the "pipe" ("|") will be visible to the reader. Note that you should generally only include a link once in any given article (or, at least, section), not every time the term occurs.

Sorry for the essay! I think that's more than enough for now :) Thanks again for all your hard work. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're doing great! Just one more little thing - don't create links to other-language versions of the article unless those versions actually exist, or someone's bound to get disappointed! :) In the case of the Yak-100, only the Bulgarian article existed, so I've removed links to the others...

You may find the tool below useful: Just type in the name of the article and click "Create aircraft". It will pre-load a blank template in the standard layout the project uses. It's pre-loaded with some sample, frequently-used sources, but these of course should be substituted for whatever you used to write the article!

In these early days, you will probably also need to refer to at least one article on a similar aircraft to find the appropriate categories and manufacturer/designer "navbox" template, but I hope it might be helpful, and will avoid the risk of copying-and-pasting obsolete/deprecated code from older articles that haven't been updated in a while. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

PS - I just removed a link to the Yak-17-RD10 from the List of aircraft. By now, you might have noticed that these lists don't include subtypes; and I'm assuming that the Yak-17-RD10 was subtype of the Yak-17? If so, the Yak-17 article could/should be expanded to cover it, but it doesn't get a separate entry in the "index". But please, if I'm wrong, feel free to put it back! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Article request

Since you've got Gordon and seem to be interested in Yakovlev types, I was wondering if you'd like to contribute an article on the Yakovlev Yak-53 - it's currently one of the types on the list of missing aircraft (on the "1989 supplement" sublist). Maybe a good first trial of the "article creation box" above? Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Another one down :) --Rlandmann (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yak-17-RD10

I'm happy to stand corrected, and on your advice put the entry back on the list.

One more formatting nit - the "Notes" section contains footnotes to the text and direct citations to the references used to prepare the article (when appropriate). It shouldn't simply contain random extra material about a subject - these should be worked into the main body of the article. Moreover, personal appraisals and opinions have no place anywhere in a Wikipedia article; we have a strict policy against "Original Research".

As far as citations go, Wikipedia only requires direct citations for "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" (ie, anything remotely controversial). However, the current practice is towards providing a citation for any and all statements of fact. To see an example of this, and how the "Notes" section is intended to be used, take a look at a recent article like Lake Renegade. If you click the "edit" link on that article and examine the code behind it, you'll see that the actual contents of the footnotes is contained within the article text itself and "automagically" gathered together at the end by the {{reflist}} template.

Hope this helps, and sorry for the continued bombardment. :) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:-Pitcairn Mailwing

I have taken the liberty of completely re-vamping the Mailwing page to include all variants. The differences between models were relatively minor, certainly very hard to distinguish visually and certainly not enough to warrant individual pages. I haven't re-directed anything - I 'm not sure how, can sonme kind soul help me with that? Another anomoly thrown up is a supposed PA-7A, which I suspect is not a Pitcairn designation see photo captions on the website listed.

Pitcairn Mailwing

What can I say? There's no comparison with what was there before! :)

In case you're curious - this is a look at the code that redirects "Pitcairn Sport Mailwing" to "Pitcairn Mailwing".

Nitpicking!

• Please remember to sign ("~~~~") material that you leave on talk pages (people's talk pages, or article talk pages), but never articles themselves
• We include the specifications of one, representative variant (usually the most numerous one); this would be especially the case with an aircraft like the Mailwing where the different models were so nearly identical.
• take a look at how to cite the Juptner book more fully
• don't add new fields to the specification parameters (like "payload") - they simply won't show up because the software that drives the template doesn't know what to do with them
• don't remove fields - leaving (even obviously irrelevant to the type) fields in place means that there's a full set there for some newcomer down the track to copy-and-paste to their own article. Furthermore, removing certain fields can make the template do strange things (eg, removing the eng2 fields causes the word "each" to appear after the eng1 description, even for a single-engine type).
• don't change the "10" in the "accessdate" field to "October"; it breaks the citation template; it's expecting the date in ISO 8601 format

But these are nits indeed! (and growing more "nitty" with every article you contribute) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You certainly like to jump in the deep end :)

Your observation about the "payload" parameter brings me to the subject of templates. In brief, templates allow us to quickly and economically reproduce the same piece of text and/or formatting in multiple articles. You can recognise them because they appear within curly brackets {{like these}}.

There are broadly speaking two kinds of template: ones that contain variables and ones that don't. Examples of the latter are {{aviation lists}} that provides the "footer" to our aircraft pages and the various manufacturer footers like {{Supermarine aircraft}}. Examples of the former type, with variables, include the "infobox" at the top of each aircraft article and the specifications section of aircraft articles. Here's the catch.

There are actually two different and mostly incompatible specifications templates in use: {{aircraft specifications}} and {{aerospecs}}. {{Aircraft specifications}} is the older of the two, and still (slightly) the more widespread. Some editors still prefer it because it allows for the customisation of certain data fields. You can immediately recognise it in articles because of its use of "main" and "alt" parameters. {{Aerospecs}} was introduced about 2 years ago and is now used on something like 40% of aircraft articles. It was created to address certain fundamental shortcomings of the older template, particularly when dealing with anything other than a conventional, heavier-than-air, powered aircraft. It was also intended to introduce greater uniformity to the presentation of articles by being less open to customisation, and to do away with parameters that are of dubious importance in an encyclopedia aimed at a general readership. In this particular instance, you'd taken fields from an article built on {{aircraft specifications}} and plonked them down into the middle of a {{aerospecs}} template, which is why they didn't work... Not that you could have been expected to know that! :)

Happy editing! --Rlandmann (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Restored but...

The article currently lacks a claim of notability, the references will need to indicate it is notable and not just a company otherwise I'll probably need to delete it again. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Swallow TP

Hi Petebutt - not sure exactly what you meant about the category; you'd chosen one much further "upstream" of where articles on types are located, so it would have been pretty lonely in there - is that what you meant? Other minutiae:

• The subject of the article, as stated in the first sentence, is put in bold (Wikipedia-wide convention)
• The "introduced" field in the infobox is for the date that a type entered military or revenue service; leave it blank for GA types.
• I don't know that including the ATC numbers in these articles is of any relevance/benefit; it's not a level of detail that encyclopedias of aircraft generally go to; and we don't record the type certificate details for modern types. I'll leave it for you to decide whether you want to continue doing this.
• Similar for certain specifications for GA aircraft; in particular stall speed, which is not frequently cited in encyclopedias/encyclopedia-type works. You'll see "commented out" guidelines in the specifications template suggesting what types of aircraft particular specifications might be especially relevant for. Again, you're not bound to follow them, but try to keep in mind what details you would expect to find in an encyclopedia of aircraft.
• Please be aware of overprecision when converting units; a measurement given in three significant figures in the published source shouldn't gain another one after conversion! :)

All just very fine-tuning, of course! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Swallow deletion

Yes, I saw what happened (after the fact). Technically Lid was well within his/her rights to take that action; however, it was a mighty unfriendly thing to do, given that the article was deleted when only one minute old (created 0951, deleted 0952); and that we have a policy here of being friendly to newcomers Itchy trigger finger?

Anyway, the matter was resolved with a good outcome; good on you for questioning. I don't know that anything else is needed at this point in time. There is an informal mentorship programme. If you'd like, I'd be happy to be your adopter. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent Russian contributions

Hi again - I've just added the adopter/adoptee userboxes to our userpages and talk pages. There isn't any particular "curriculum" that we must follow; if anything, it lets other editors know that you're still finding your feet and have a more experienced contributor providing feedback. Unless you have any specific questions or areas of Wikipedia you'd like to explore, I'm happy to simply keep providing ongoing feedback

Your most recent round of new pages/updates of old pages are becoming practically indistinguishable from the work of an experienced contributor here, so well done on picking up Wikipedia style so quickly. Probably the only major difficulty you still seem to be having (but please, tell me if there are others!) is with Wiki links.

Anything that you put inside [[double square brackets]] is a separate, individual link to an article with the specific name you've put in between those brackets. So, for example, when you linked [[de Havilland]] [[DHC-1]] [[Chipmunk]], you created three separate links - one pointing to de Havilland, one pointing to DHC-1, and one pointing to Chipmunk. It's important to consider the context when making links; this link to the Chipmunk trainer was there in order to present it as a comparable aircraft to the UT-2. So, with that in mind, the link to the rodent is completely irrelevant, the link to de Havilland almost as irrelevant, and it's purely by luck that a redirect from "DHC-1" existed to actually take the reader to the page that you actually meant. Rather than make three separate links, only one of which is really helpful to the reader, it's better to just make a single link pointing to what you really mean: [[de Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk]].

The words in the square brackets are like telephone numbers - if they're not exactly correct, they won't take you where you want to go; a "wrong number" will either get no reply on the other end, (for example, a typo like de Havliland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk), or sometimes a telephone number that's technically "wrong" will still get you the person you're after but only because the number has been redirected (like the DHC-1 example). I'd better stop now before the analogy breaks down, but I hope that helps!

It's important to realise that a very generic link (like a alphanumeric designation) is extremely unlikely to work as expected, if at all. In a previous article, you linked Model A, which takes us to the Ford automobile, and in a recent one you linked SR-2, which doesn't tell us anything about RATO bottles, but instead, takes us to a list of highways around the world, since many US states have a major highway named SR-2 ("State Route" 2).

Nit-picking time!

• measurements and units need a space between them: 23 mm, not 23mm
• dates are given as cardinal, not ordinal numbers: 27 October, not 27th October or 27th of October
• be sparing with capital letters: tail barbette, not Tail Barbette
• remember that we're writing an encyclopedia, so the prose needs to be quite formal. Things like "approx." "etc" or "2×" are out of place in prose sections (but may be fine in tables and data sections).
• please don't remove the hidden comments from the specifications section (such as <!-- gliders -->) these are there to help newcomers who may copy-and-paste the section into their own article one day. If you're worried that the data won't show, don't be; the <! and > only hide what's between them, so |aspect ratio:<!-- gliders -->18.5 would still show the "18.5" even with the comment left in place.
• You've been inserting a section break after only a single lead sentence. If the lead of the article is any shorter than a full paragraph (say, at least 3-4 sentences), there's no need for this. Remember that we're writing connected prose here.

I think that's it! And please keep up the good work ;) --Rlandmann (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry at all about finding gaffs after saving a page and then having to go back and fix them - even after many years and tens of thousands of edits I find I could equally say the same thing!

One possible way of helping the flow from the lead, "definitional" sentence into the history of the aircraft is to actually describe the machine. Yes, it's dry and often repetitive from one article to the next (but then, how many articles is one of our readers reading in a row?) but it also helps get around the sad facts we don't have pictures of many of the aircraft we cover, and are unlikely ever to have usable photos of some of the more obscure types; so there's "a thousand words" right there :) An additional benefit is that it improves accessibility to the article for people who have sight impairments.

As an example, here's one that I had quite a bit of information to work with: Meyers MAC-145; and one without quite so much, unfortunately: Messerschmitt M 28. I'm not by any means suggesting that this is the best way or the only way to write a lead; but merely offering it as one possible solution to the problem. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

More Feedback

Hi again :) First up - a major problem. On a couple of occasions now, you've copied the text from an existing article and pasted it into a fresh article. This is known as a "cut and paste move" and is highly problematic because it fragments the edit history of the article, which in turn is problematic for copyright and licencing reasons. If you want to move a page, there's a "move" link at the top of each and every page; just click on it and follow the instructions. Having said that, please move pages with caution - they're usually where they are for a good reason, and in the case of the Bach Air Yacht, I moved the page back to its original location to better fit Wikipedia's naming conventions for aircraft.

Beside that, everything else pretty much fades into insignificance; but nevertheless there are still a few bugs here:

• Don't include a separate "Development" heading for short articles like these; this creates not just a one-sentence paragraph at the start of the article (bad enough), but indeed a one-sentence section.
• Please remember to include both "metric" and "english" units in the specs section. If you need help with the conversions, let me know and I can point you to a few converters and other resources.
• If you include machines in the "comparable aircraft" section, each of them needs to start with an asterisk; including the first, otherwise the section won't display properly.
• Links again: because Wikipedia articles are (generally) written on types, not subtypes, we do not have and are unlikely to ever have an article called [[Vickers Armstrong Warwick B Mk.1]], so this should have been (at least) [[Vickers Armstrong Warwick]]. As it happens, this article is actually located simply at [[Vickers Warwick]], which is where I ended up pointing the link.
• Finally, I'm not sure whether this is on purpose or not, but you're tending to leave the citations to Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation and The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft in the "References" section. These are only in the page creation template as models; if you didn't actually use either of these works to create the article, they should be deleted out.

Cheers! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Important - Please only use the article creation template to create brand-new articles or to edit severely underdeveloped ones (like the Pitcairn Mailwing or New Standard D-25). As I said earlier, there are many editors who still prefer the older method of providing specifications, and using the template to "update" long-established and developed articles (as you just did on the Ilyushin Il-10) is bound to create considerable friction; as it will appear that you are trying to "steamroll" these changes over them. I've therefore reverted your change to this article. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

PPS: Also Important - where we have enough material to support even a small article on an aircraft with a distinct designation in a major sequence (such as the Ilyushin Il-1), this should remain a separate article. I've undone the redirect you put in place. (which, incidentally, was wrongly done - the "#redirect [[target page]]" should replace the text of the page being redirected, not simply sit on top of the old page.) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the proposed merger of Il-1 with Il-10 on the talkpage. It needs some discussion (and hopefully some sources) on just how closely they are related and whether they should be merged or not, so consensus on the right thing to do can be reached.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Be Bold!

While the couple of edits mentioned above were problematic (welcome to wiki-politics!) the worst response would be to become over-cautious. You can usually get a gauge of potential pitfalls by looking at the edit history of a page (number of editors who've contributed and "freshness" of edits) and at the talk page (again, intensity and "freshness" of discussion). Given that the Beriev A-50 article seems pretty stable and discussions pretty "stale", I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for responses on the talk page!

A trivial change like replacing "welded up" with something more appropriate doesn't need to be discussed; just be bold!. For something more substantial, like relocating the variants to the Il-76 page, posing a question such as you have is a pretty good idea; usually, if there's no reply after a few days, you can assume that it's safe to go ahead and make the change (have you discovered the "watch page" feature yet?)

On that note, there's one little "gotcha" to be aware of when cutting a section out of one article and pasting it into another: make sure that you put something like "Merged material from [[Beriev A-50]]" (remembering to wiki-link the source article) in as the Edit Summary. This is for copyright and licencing reasons. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Public domain images

Finding images is a constant challenge, and unfortunately it's likely that we'll never have usable photographs for the vast majority of aircraft that Wikipedia covers; on the other hand, "free" line drawings and photographs of models can always be created and used.

As far as material on Vectorsite goes - yes, anything identified as Greg Goebel's own work is indeed in the public domain and is usable; including all the text (although there are special problems with the latter). However, some of the articles are illustrated by photos taken by other people/organisations (and are always identified as such) and these cannot be assumed to be public domain or usable by Wikipedia.

Were there any pictures in particular that you were wondering about? --Rlandmann (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Feedback: Il-46

• We don't normally provide the manufacturer's/construction bureau's name as part of the "name" parameter in the infobox since it's explicitly stated only 3 lines down.
• The name of the article, when stated in the introduction, should be bolded.
• Don't include a separate "Development" heading unless the article has a long introductory paragraph (not just a single sentence!)
• Don't try to include specifications for more than one type of engine, ie, either the AL-5 or AL-5F (I kept the AL-5F specs in place - please check that the performance specifications reflect the Il-46 with this engine, otherwise we'll need to change this)
• We don't include specs for RATO/JATO or APUs as engines - these specs belong in an article on the unit itself, or in the article text if they're particularly relevant for some reason.
• If you're placing entries in the "similar aircraft" parameter of "See also", make sure that each entry is linked, and starts with an asterisk on a new line.
• Another linking nit: Tupolev Tu-88 is a working link, but Tupolev 'Tu-88' is not and never would be...

Sorry for all the "thou shalt not"s! On a more positive note, it was great to see you use the "ref" feature to generate a citation to your source. Just note that when you're doing this, you don't need to provide the full bibliographic details - these go in the "References" section (as you correctly did).

I also removed the link to the photo on 1000aircraftphotos.com, since it seems unlikely to me that the website actually owns the copyright to that image, and we have a responsibility avoid linking to such images; it puts Wikipedia in a position of contributory infringement.

Also, such a link (when the site hosting it appears to be the copyright holder or using it with the copyright holder's permission) should be placed in the "External links" section, not "References" and is not formatted as a citation; rather, something like this:

• Photo of An-225 in flight on Ukrainian Embassy website

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem

Thanks for uploading

• Image:Ilyushin Il-22.png
• Image:Ilyushin Il-46.png
• Image:Ilyushin Il-28 1.png
• Image:Ilyushin Il-28 3.png
• Image:Ilyushin Il-28 4.png
• Image:Ilyushin Il-28 5.png
• Image:Antonov An-22 Antheus.png
• Image:Myasischev Strategic Bomber projects.png
• Image:Antonov An-124 & An-225.png

In each case, the image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (Separate bot messages condensed down into one Rlandmann (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

Your uploads

Good day. I see that you have uploaded a number of images to Wikipedia. First off, thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, there are some guidelines that we need to follow with copyrighted images. Specifically, you need to add a source for the image (a link to a website will do), a copyright tag (there are some listed at WP:ICT), and a rationale explaining why we can use a copyrighted image (explained at WP:NFURG). I see that your images fail to include one of these. Please stop uploading images and address the concerns listed above. If you need assistance, you can ask at the help desk. If you do not fix these images, and you continue to make bad uploads, you will be blocked and your images will be deleted. Thanks for your contributions! STBotI (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Images - what went wrong

There are three pieces of information that are critical for any image uploaded to Wikipedia:

• the author (who created it?)
• the source (where did you get it?)
• copyright and licencing information (how are we allowed to use it? - usually supplied in a "tag")

In this batch of images, the second and third elements were both incomplete.

The "source" information has to be specific - in these instances "vectorsite.net" isn't sufficient - you need to specify the address of the particular page that they came from. For a print source, you would need to provide bibliographic details and a page number.

As for the licence - you did provide a direct link (which is indeed best practice), but you didn't say what the licence actually was! So in the "permission" field, you needed to say something like "Image released into public domain by author". Better still, these images needed a "tag" applied, which is a standardised way of reporting their copyright status. There are, unfortunately, a bewildering multitude of these things (intended to cater for the vast variety of types of images we get here). You can find the most important and most frequently used ones here. In this case, the appropriate tag was {{PD-author}}, for an image released into the Public Domain by its author. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to do anything further - I already fixed the images; you can use any of them now as a model (in conjunction with the notes above) for any further images you want to use from vectorsite. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Another formatting tip

Hi again; just a tip to be a little more sparing with bold text. In Wikipedia articles, the subject of the article is presented in bold face when it first appears in the article (which is almost always in the first sentence). Subsequent usages of the name should not be bolded. (see WP:MOSBOLD

Alternative names and synonyms are generally placed as early in the article as possible, for pragmatic reasons – this helps readers know that they're "on the right page". These are also bolded. In the context of aircraft articles, this would mean that Allied/NATO reporting names should be mentioned in the first or second sentence.

WP:AIR also follows the common convention in aviation publishing of bolding variant designations the first time these appear in the text, "stretching" the general rule on bolding alternative names and applying it outside of the lead section of the article. But, once they've appeared, they should not continue to be bolded in prose sections. (Or, if you want to follow the more general rules more precisely, then variants should never be bolded at all.) --Rlandmann (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem you're running into is that standards around here have slowly grown and evolved. This means that a particular style that you encounter in an older article (like bolding every instance of a designation, which was indeed how we used to do things some time ago) may not reflect the current "state of play".

If you're seeing articles missing their "Notes" and/or "References" sections (or equivalent), this is also probably because it's an older article formatted to an earlier standard. Adding them is simple: the standard order for the "Appendix" sections is:

• See also
• Notes
• References
• External links

These sections should only be added if there's something to actually put in them, of course, but if so, it's just a case of inserting

==Notes==
{{Reflist}}

==References==
*source 1 goes here
*source 2 goes here
*source 3 goes here etc

at the appropriate point in the text. If you can point me to a specific example you've encountered, I can probably comment more specifically on what you're seeing. :) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Slingsby T.2 Falcon 2

Hi, I don't know what you intend to do with the page, but it should not stay blank. Equendil Talk 15:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, someone's deleted it now. I think you had it right before you blanked the page. Equendil Talk 15:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Alekseyev I-21

Thanks for this article. It is normal to stick a lead in; at the moment it isn't immediately clear what the article is about. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

IP ADDRESS BLOCKED

Edgar181 Has blocked my IP -------WHY???????????????????????? Have I done something to offend anyone????? I don't think so!! If he has evidence that I am responsible for abuse why did he arbitrarily block my IP instead of discussing it with me??????????????????? I AM NOT HAPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Petebutt (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Petebutt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have no idea what this guy is talking about, look at my contributions and tell me if I abuse wikipedia (other than bad editting of course)

Decline reason:

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
   Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
   If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
2. Try to edit the Sandbox.
3. If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-ip|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
4. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing.  Sandstein  16:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

unblock-ip

Edgar 181???/

How odd, all of a sudden Edgar 181 page has been deleted, just after he instituted a block on my IP address (which is ina block used by my ISP - I checked with a WhoIs). Does anybody know what is going on here?????????????? Petebutt (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=please re-consider unblock request. I have results of a WhoIs here. Please note that I only received IP this afternoon :- new subscriber}} Petebutt (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies to check the IP. I apologize for any inconvenience. --auburnpilot talk 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

According to User:ClueBot IV/WPOPreports/85.194.127.11, the IP is no longer an open proxy. I've unblocked it and you should be free to edit. --auburnpilot talk 19:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

explanation

Aside from your having been collateral damage to an IP block (since fixed), I note that you were wondering what happened to Edgar181's page after he blocked you.

The answer: nothing happened to his page - or rather, nothing happened to his userpage. User:Edgar181 still exists; you were looking for an article called that.

(That said, your contributions have been very high quality. Keep up the good work!) DS (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

tiresome IP blocks

Can someone force these over zealous blockers to actually check out the users they are blocking before they go ahead????Petebutt (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

unblock-ip

Piston-Engines

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Piston-Engines, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.definethis.org/word/List_of_aircraft_engines.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Engines

Would be a good idea to add your lists to {{Aviation lists}}. Re your message to Coren - ripping off Wikipedia content is perfectly legal, providing … In this case you have a ligitimate complaint against definethis.org for failing to acknowledge their source and reproduce the GFDL licence. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give List of rocket engines a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. GW… 11:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Article moves

Any reason why you have been renaming aircraft articles - cant find any discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming or elsewhere? Appreciate if you could stop doing it for now. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now raised the matter at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Avro_renaming as this has a bigger audience than Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft). Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Akaflieg Stuttgart FS-26

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Akaflieg Stuttgart FS-26, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Fauvel/e_fs26.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for working on this. Unfortunately, the version you've created remains too close to the source, with both literal duplications of phrases and excessive organizational similarities. While copyright law in the United States only governs creative expression of information, more than literal language is regarded as creative. The arrangement of sentences and the order of facts as chosen by an author are creative as well. I have blanked the section of the article originally copied from the external site for now. It will need to be rewritten further in order for us to use it, unless the original authors are willing to release the text (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). You may find the user essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing helpful. I would also be happy to discuss the matter with you further and will watchlist your page for a time in case I can clarify this. Meanwhile, I am relisting the article at the copyright problems board (it was automatically listed by CorenSearchBot and came ripe for administrator closure today) to give you an opportunity to address these concerns further. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Bratukhin Omega II

Just a friendly note on Bratukhin Omega II. If you want to remove a redirect, the best route is to list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I also reverted Republic XP-69, see the talk page there. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New articles

Appreciate if you could list any new aircraft articles you create at Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft), it flags them up to others in the aircraft project. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding them there. In future can you put them in date order (latest at the bottom) and just put one entry per article? Thanks - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see a complete list of your edits, including created articles click on "my contributions" on any page (top right) which will take you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Petebutt. You can also check Soxred93's tool which can list your articles created. - Ahunt (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For diligent creation of many articles, including PZL Bielsko SZD-7, PZL Bielsko SZD-10, PZL Bielsko SZD-11, PZL Bielsko SZD-12, PZL Bielsko SZD-13, PZL Bielsko SZD-6x and PZL Bielsko SZD-8. - Ahunt (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done on the wikiwings and thanks for the good work, can I just make a few observations which will just help other editors from correcting things. We dont use the Category:Aircraft on aircraft articles but normally a more defined one like Category:German fighter aircraft 1940-1949. You can find stuff on categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories. Also note we dont normally add a link to list of aircraft because the navbox at the bottom gives a link to the aircraft list. Also note that dates should be 5 November and not 5th November and we dont normally link dates or use the avyear template. Sorry for being a bit nit-picky but it would save other editors time in correcting. If you have any questions then please ask me or one of the other aircraft project members. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

T:TDYK

Thank you for creating interesting articles such as PZL Bielsko SZD-6x. If you were to add some inline cites to them, you could nominate them for front page exposure at T:TDYK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Single sources are ok for DYK, as long the article has inline citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of P.W.S.A

A tag has been placed on P.W.S.A requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Glasflügel 402. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --Allen3 ^talk 22:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

the PZL P.7 to P.Z.L. P.7 move

why did you move the article? Loosmark (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a number of books on aviation, some of them by Polish authors, and they all use PZL. I suggest you revert your move and start a discussion on the talk presenting the sources for your claim. thank you. Loosmark (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this may need further discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

See: discussion about changes. Report there forthwith! LOL. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Slingsby Kirby Cadet

You have just created Slingsby T.8 Kirby Tutor I presume you were not aware that the type already has an article at Slingsby Kirby Tutor. Just to let you know how to sort this out is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry just realised you created both articles, I will redirect T.8 Kirby Tutor to Kirby Tutor as it meets the naming convention. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reminding me that on en wiki the official language is english... if you need the translation of some of my discussion I will deliver it... (but what are you talking about?)

regards from Italia --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Italian language

Hello, I probably was using Italian with somebody that understand it... to be honest I did not think that other people could come to read our messages... I usually dont go to read others' correspondance, so I made a mistake. greetings from Abruzzo, Italia --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Schreder HP-14

Thanks for your note. The Template:WPAVIATION creator is relatively up to date but the governing guidance is found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. If you check through either one you will find that there is no "description" section. The normal sections in an aircraft article are:

• Development
• Design
• Operational history
• Variants
• Operators
• Accidents and incidents
• Aircraft on display
• Survivors

Of course there maybe reasons to deviate from that pattern, but I don't see a reason to do so in the Schreder HP-14 article. Also as per WP:MOS it is best to avoid lists in text where they can be replaced with prose. In the case of the description section in this article the list is mostly redundant anyway and merely restates what is already there. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Sure you create paragraphs within sections simply by inserting two returns, in other words creating a blank line in between your paragraphs. - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WPAVIATION Creator request

Per your request at Template talk:WPAVIATION creator, I think that Template:Aerospecs already includes knots. In discussion long ago (See this wing loading was thought to be original research and therefore not to be used. This may have changed though, so I'd take the request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft to get more feedback. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 20:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is discussion going on here about merging the two types of aircraft specifications templates. If you could outline what you require for glider specifications, I'm sure it can be incorporated into the new template. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 01:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Improving" of articles about Polish aircraft

Most of your recent edits, especially changing aircraft designations is nothing more that vandalisms. Your only source is old and outdated book of J.B.Cynk, worthless in out times. Main source for all knowledge related to Polish prewar aircraft are well researched and based on original docs Polskie Konstrukcje Lotnicze books. Before you've started your "corrects" all articles were updated to their standard. Please, be so kind and stop renaming these articles until you'll be able to use three volumes of Polskie Konstrukcje Lotnicze. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Contest update

Well, it's just 1 day until the contest begins, so I thought I'd check in with everyone and make sure you're all ready to go. First I'd like everyone to check out the main contest page and read over the rules and the scoring system. If you have any final questions or concerns, make them known on the talk page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/History/2009 is the scoreboard that will be updated, you can watchlist it. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions which shows how your submission page should look. Another example is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions Example, and your personal page should be listed at the footer of the page, which is also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Users. Again, take any questions to the contest talk page.

Good luck! - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 20:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Contest scoring change

I've realized there may be an issue with the scoring system, and I have a solution, which I've explained here. Feedback is requested. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I appreciate your efforts with new Glider articles but please note that if you use the same citation a number of times you only have to type it in full once, you then give the citation a name which can then be used on other instances. This means it only gets one mention in references. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Glossary of USSR/Russian aviation acronyms

I think I fixed it - seems to be a duplication of the text that crept in. Hope that looks better? Have a good holiday! - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. There are now hundreds of duplicate refs on the page, but I will leave it to the SmackBot to fix those up. If you give your refs a name ie: <ref name="Green">Green, William: ''Observers Aircraft'', page 228. Frederick Warne Publishing, 1991. ISBN 0 7232 3697 6</ref> for the first instance and then <ref name="Green"/> for subsequent citations of the same book, then the refs will work much better and without duplication. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For amazing citation-fixing work on Glossary of USSR/Russian aviation acronyms - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Yak17 RD-10-1.jpg

There was no need to reupload File:Yak17 RD-10-1.jpg on this wiki when it is a freely licenced image and can go directly in the commons and the badly named image has been tagged for renaming on the commons anyway. This is just more work for everyone. I am tagging this one for deletion and linking, for now, to the badly named image that will be renamed. It seems that commons:File:Yak15-3.jpg is now properly described but if not please correct it. We don't do redirects from this wiki to the commons for images. Alternatively you could have uploaded the properly named image on the commons and asked for the wrongly named one to be deleted. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Petebutt. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing articles

Regarding this edit. Piping and changing links without creating redirects is not what this page is for. The instructions at the top of the pages state:Please do not "fix" a link by changing it to the correct page, instead create a redirect at the page listed. Please only remove an item from a list when there is either an article or redirect in place.

For example if you see then redlink PZL Bielsko SZD-6 on the page, but you know that PZL Bielsko SZD-6x exists, just create the first as a redirect to the second. And piping the links (e.g. SZD-6x Nietoperz) will make people think that the article SZD-6x Nietoperz exists, when in fact it does not and should also be created as a redirect. I've reverted your edits, returning the links that need to be created along with the articles they should be redirected to. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Victor

1. Are you sure? Sources please.

2. If 1. is met, are you going to change all the links? --John (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I went in search of evidence of something I was convinced of, (I don't know why). I've always written it Handley-Page. Never mind, I've changed it all back(I think)Petebutt (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'm pretty sure the non hyphen version is correct. Cheers. --John (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent changes!

Thanks for your recent edits!! - The only wrong thing is doing nothing. 189.217.171.135 (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Article moves - Blohm & Voss to Blohm + Voss

I've just started a topic on your page moves of Blohm & Voss aircraft to Blohm+Voss here.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Xian MA60

Re your redirecting the Xian MA60 article to Antonov An-24, please see the thread I started at WT:AVIATION as I'm not sure that the two articles should have been combined. Please note - I am not saying that your edit was in any way vandalism, it seems that it may be a bold edit, but nothing more than that. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tupolev Tu-116

You attempted to nominate Tupolev Tu-116 for deletion, but you did not create a nomination for deletion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tupolev Tu-116. If you want to nominate the page for deletion, feel free to try again but please make sure to follow all the steps at WP:AFD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We can issue IPBE to you, which will allow you to edit thru the block. Is this acceptable? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 19:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as it works through Onspeed, then yes, ThanksPetebutt (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just granted it; try it now. If it works, let me know and I'll clear the unblock request. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it works, thanks. Just as a matter of interest, will it un-block all onspeed users? I think that may be the case if the un-block is related only to IP address, but then I know nothing, i from Barcelona.Petebutt (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided the IP address. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 10:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Contest

Hi Petebutt! This note is to inform you that your Aviation Contest submissions page has been archived from the previous round! You are now free to add submissions for this round! Note: This next round will run from January through February, so feel free to update your submission page with work from both months! Thanks, and happy editing! (Note: I will not be watching this space. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Contest discussion page. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yak-141

Hi Petebutt :)

Just wondering why you deleted this entry from the list of aircraft? --Rlandmann (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Thanks for your effort but i don't wish to sound like I'm offending you, could you please help to avoid any unintended misunderstanding by providing a short explanation of you're doing when editing on articles, such as what you did on B-47 Stratojet. Personally, I hate vandals messing up our effort but I also hate to be labelled as one when I don't provide a valid reason in the Edit summary box. Agree? Other than that, no harm done. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I forget, well mostly these days, will try harder.Petebutt (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

B-56

Hi again!

Just a quick note to let you know that I undid the redirection of this article to B-47. In general, Wikipedia relies on manufacturers' and operators' designations to guide how we divide content. We should only ever redirect a designation or a model number as an absolute last resort. This has unfortunately been necessary in the case of some early aircraft where the entire article would otherwise be a single sentence to the effect of

“ The Müller D.IV was identical to the Müller D.III but with the BMW IIIa engines replaced with Mercedes D.III engines instead. ”

or

“ Smith O-56 was the name given to the Smith P-45 when used as reconnaissance aircraft. ”

If that's all we can say, then unfortunately, we probably have to merge the D.IV article into the D.III (or the O-56 into the P-45) and hopefully we'll have enough to say about both of them together.

That's not the case with the B-47 and B-56, however. The B-56 article is already longer than many of our articles on lesser-known types, and the B-47 article is plenty long as it is. Indeed, the B-56 article could (and should!) be expanded with, at the very least, the as-designed specifications of the aircraft (which I note are available on the NMUSAF website).

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Fairy snuff, that's the beauty of this game, most things are relatively easy to put right or revertPetebutt (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no harm done :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

List of aircraft

I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured lists are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the List of aircraft article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured list candidate instructions. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you call a principal contributor then. I have had a large input into developing the List of aircraft, is that not enough? What would you want to see for a featured list then. That list is pretty much comprehensive, but incomplete and it is always going to be so. There is nothing else you can do with it as far as i can see, so it must qualify, even if it fails to meet the high standards expected.Petebutt (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Conversion Units

Any reason why you have moved List of Royal Air Force heavy conversion units as it is an article that list HCUs and nothing else. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the process of expanding the article to include all Conversion Units. It's worth making these lists as large as is practicable or we'll end up with thousandsPetebutt (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood, what other conversion units where you thinking about, the OCUs already have a page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Amalgamating the OCU's and heavy transport conversion units etc.Petebutt (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK understood, just out of interest I am working on a list of the OTUs in slow time at User:MilborneOne/WIP. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not got that far yet, hopefully you will see what I will do soonPetebutt (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's at least 94 OTU's so maybve they would be suitable for a stand-alone list, I'll leave that to youPetebutt (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Petebutt. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 13:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Royal Air Force Conversion Units

Hi :) I've taken a look -- is that something like what you were after? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Some bits better, the RAF lists box gong improves t a lot , but there are still a couple of l;ines not showing,

Thanks anywayPetebutt (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice anything missing -- What's not showing? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded on what you showed me and improved the table at the same time, all OK nowPetebutt (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

RAF Squadron list

What's with removing the space between No. and the squadron number? It's broken a hell of a lot of links (and links in other articles generally following the spaced formatting), and less importantly, looks horrible to my eye. I don't want to simply revert since you've obviously added a lot of stuff too, but this is a fairly major change potentially affecting a lot of articles, so could use some discussion. David Underdown (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Page moves and titles

Hi again! :)

Just a quick note that most aircraft articles are titled quite deliberately and that moving them is likely to be controversial. As such, it's probably better to discuss any such moves at WT:AIR and gauge in which direction consensus lies and why (see also the policy here). I've just reverted a couple of your recent page moves after another user brought them up for discussion on WT:AIR -- please have a read of the thread, as I've also tried to answer your question about naming early Breguet types.

I'm certainly not going to claim that other contributors here have always been consistent or are in any way infallible, but there's usually at least some reason why things are the way they are.

One other much more minor thing; please don't enclose aircraft names in quotation marks (for example, Colomban MC-10 'Cri-Cri'). This is especially important when naming pages — ie, never include quotation marks in anything that you're going to enclose in [[ ]], as this is a surefire way of ending up with an orphaned article (and yes, there's yet another policy against it too, here).

I hope never to discourage you in the valuable work that you do around here; please take these comments in the collegiate manner in which they're intended. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved them and editted the content as the original author had obviously got confused somewhere along the line, but what is there now is OK, but I would have preferred two separate articles as the Mirage G and Mirage G-8 aircraft were considerably different, enough to warrant separate articles. The relationship is very similat to that between the Mirage F.1 and Mirage F.2, with the F.2 being considerably larger than the F.1.Petebutt (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

North American on the List of aircraft

Hi - Please don't remove manufacturer names from these lists; apart from keeping presentation standard between manufacturers, it makes it much more search-engine friendly! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! However, just be aware that bare designations like A-27, P-64, and X-10 are fraught with danger; you never know where they'll go ;)

It's best practice to always make sure that a designation is accompanied by either a manufacturer name or model name; for reasons that should be obvious when you click on any of those links. Also be aware that while (for example) O-47 does indeed link to the aircraft right now, there's no reason to assume that it will always do so in the future... --Rlandmann (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You seemed to have moved on to other things, so I've just fixed the above links. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry lost track of what neede to be undonePetebutt (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem -- I'm just very grateful for all the work you're putting into these! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Consolidated

Just a quick note to say that this reformat is right on the money; everything is beautiful!

One question, though, what's a "Liberator 11"? I wonder whether this is a typo for "Liberator II" (ie, Liberator Mk.II in RAF service). Either way, if it's a Liberator subtype, it shouldn't be on the list. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Liberator 11 was the RAF version, with no US equivalent, fitted with Boulton-Paul turrets and .303 guns. Well according to Aerofiles who are pretty authorative on US aircraft.

http://aerofiles.com/_conso.htmlPetebutt (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As I thought, "11" is a mistake for "II". Joe Baugher has a nice write-up of this subtype here: http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b24_5.html -- Rlandmann (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Scaled Composites Model 89

Hello Petebutt, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Scaled Composites Model 89, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Sopher99. This has been done because the page is a very short article providing no content to the reader (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Sopher99. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Sopher99 (talk · contribs) 05:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Glossary of USSR Russian aviation acronyms – Aircraft Designations

Hello, I have been working on Category:Pages with broken reference names. On this edit to Glossary of USSR Russian aviation acronyms – Aircraft Designations, you added a reference name of "Gordon SI" but without an actual citation. I know it's been a while since then, but I was hoping you remember what source you meant to include and could fix the page. My guess is that it's the "Sukhoi Interceptors" item from the list of Gordon books (because of the SI), but I don't know the topic and don't want to put in the wrong thing. Thanks! Salamurai (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes Sukhoi Interceptors, ThanksPetebutt (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I,ve fixed that and the other with a typo in the citationPetebutt (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Salamurai (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Northrop Grumman KC-45, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BilCat (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

I have noticed that you are creating re-directs to aircraft articles in some cases the redirect title is not mentioned in the target article which the reader has no means of knowing why they have been re-directed. I have also found a few that appear to be in error which I will go through and comment/delete as appropriate. As you will understand this also creates extra work for other editors to check and correct. I appreciate you are trying to help but please make sure that when you re-direct it gets a mention in the article. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Some did slip through, sorryPetebutt (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Zero vs Rei-Sen and Reisen

You have just moved two Zero pages, one to List of A6M Reisen operators and the other to Mitsubishi A6M Rei-Sen. What the hell? I do not agree with these undiscussed moves—I will push to have them moved back—but really, why change the article's title if you do not know which other title to use? In one case, you made Reisen one word; in the other you hyphenated the two halves and capitalized the second half. Can you see the problem here? Not very well thought out. Binksternet (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Pete, I have moved the aircraft page back and restored the former name. If you want to discuss please post on the Zero's talk page. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Page moving

Please stop your moving of aviation articles. Your actions are moving pages to titles that go against naming conventions and/or consensus. If you continue to move pages in a disruptive fashion disregarding Wikipedia policies, as you did at A6M Zero, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Petebutt you are anoying a lot of people in the aircraft project with some of your page moves. It would help if you discussed and got consensus to these moves particularly some of the larger profile pages. In some of these articles they have been stable for a long time so we would really need a good reason to change them. You would be surprised if you actually discussed these things particularly with the aircraft project you may get agreement and support for your changes and lower the levels of frustration caused by your moves with other editors. If they dont agree with you then at least you could understand why. Again I know you are trying to improve the aircraft articles and particularly the list of aircraft but it would be easier if you worked with other editors on the aircraft project rather than against them all the time. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pemberton Billing

DO NOT make changes like this without discussing on Talk. What evidence do you have that his name was hyphenated? Often hyphens are inaccurately used in names that were not hypenated. His name appears unhypenated in many sources, including the authoritative Dictionary of National Biography [2] [3] For example William Holman Hunt, whose name is not William Holman-Hunt. His daughter included his middle name as her surname, so she is Diana Holman-Hunt. There are many cases like this leading to confusion and misplacing of hyphens. It is more like "vandalism" to unilaterally change an article without discussing it and without evidence. Leave the article in the form in which it was stable, then raise the issue for discussion. Paul B (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

USAF Unit Names

I've reverted the name changes you made to several USAF units. In the spring-summer of 2008 there was a discussion about whether or not USAF units should be disambig tags in the title. The consensus was that unless another nation has a unit with an identical name a disambig in the title was not necessary. May I ask that you please discuss future page move proposals before unilaterally doing them yourself.--Ndunruh (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

PWS-5 / PWS-6

Thanks. I'll try to keep in mind the changes to PWS-5. Feel free to improve other articles. My English, I'm afraid, is worsening year by year - writing in Internet is the only thing, that keeps it alive :-) Pibwl ←« 21:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC) PS: I can't remember me deleting any empty specifications, but I probably work on already "shortened" templates, from existing articles, possibly not up to current standards(?)

I see we have a conflicting info on PWS-5 first flight (28 December in text after Glass and 20 Dec in infobox). I'd rather believe Glass, for his book was marginally newer, and had easier access to archives in Poland (BTW, Cynk's book of 1971 is in his bibliography). Pibwl ←« 21:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK change it back then no problem.Petebutt (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around!  Roger Davies ^talk 10:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Macfie Monoplane

Just in case you didn't add the Macfie Monoplane to your watchlist - it now has some supporting materials (one photo in the infobox, two line drawings in the body and side and plan views under specifications). If/when you have time, would you have another look? I'd appreciate your views. Many thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:B-13 Akaflieg Berlin.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:B-13 Akaflieg Berlin.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the magic

Don't know what magic wand you waved to make the complete list of aerodromes appear in Jasta 19, but it sure is appreciated.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

PWS-3

Thanks for a note. In fact, I never thought that adding that stuff on talk pages is necessary. Maybe I should learn how to do it. Pibwl ←« 14:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent comments

While your recent comments on my Talk Page were well-meant, they were wide of the mark. I was not concerned with assessment of the article by anyone, much less myself. I was concerned about the deletion of reference information, such as ISBNs.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

---

No hard feelings here. And I truly didn't mean to be prickly...just a might starchy.

I do not believe the editor in question was a vandal; I do believe he/she was sincere in their belief; I sincerely believe they are wrong. So I disagree with them, but impute no evil motive to them.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

CC OOB

No problem. I was tired towards the end, so they probably are mistakes in there. Though I have checked and they agree with mine. No problem if you want to mention the conflict. I can't bring myself to deal with the last one just yet. Dapi89 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

All the table are drawn up using Ashworth's book. Looks fine. Dapi89 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

J2RF Albatross

Just to let you know that {{db-author}} is the template to use for this in future. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have big problems figuring out templates to use, maybe an idiots guide would help with a link on every edit page, mmmmmmmmmmm!, how would I do that , I wonderPetebutt (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Vought O4U

Hi. I see you blanked a redirect here. Was it intencional? I taught that was vandalism (since blanking pages are usual vandalisms) and I just reverted. I'm sure it's not vandalism, but it doesn't seem to be correct.--T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 07:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that neither you nor the creator of the redirect are vandals. I just used the word because I was reverting vandalism at the "Recent changes" and your edit looked like a vandalism at the first moment. Blanked pages are not "removed", since they were not deleted. Don't you think you should use some speedy deletion tag, instead of just removing the content? See also that there are some links to the blanked page.--T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 07:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Don't forget to fix the pages that links to that page. Thanks for your attention. Regards.--T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 08:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Northrop Grumman KC-45, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BilCat (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please discuss moves to major or controversial pages before you make them, as you have been asked to do many times. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

DC3 accidents in 1974

You did not give any rationale for a merge. I'm against a merge for reasons set out here. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is just too small an article, especially for a list, unless you go into a lot of detail for each accident. No objection to the article per se I just feel that less(fewer articles) would be more in this instance.Petebutt (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello, two pages you recently created, Shorts Seamew and Specification NA.39, were both redirects to Target page name. These invalid redirects will probably be deleted soon; I'm leaving you this message in case you want to create them again with valid targets. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Having just deleted them both as test pages, I came here to give you the same message. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Finger trouble, should have been aircrewPetebutt (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514

I've removed the PROD. If you really think this accident is non-notable, you'll have to list it at AfD. Your comment on the talk page was a bit over the top IMO. Nonetheless, I've replied there stating why I feel that the accident is notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD nominations

I have removed the two entries you made on the AFD page. The reason I did that is because you haven't atually nominated them for deletion. WP:AFDHOWTO shows you the steps in nominating an article for AFD. If you need help let me know. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My Location

I am an English teacher working on an Aramco contract. I am living in the Tammimi Western Compound. My e-mail is listed on my page. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Since you have created talk pages on two articles I have recently created, I presume this can't be a coincidence. You must be able to find recently created articles. I'm curious as to how you are able to do this. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks. Dwight Burdette (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My article contributions

Hello Pete! I've noticed that a fair proportion of my new articles have been assessed by you. I'm relaxed about the 'gradings' - and thank you for your good work on behalf of Wikipedia. Most noteworthy aircraft types are now covered by articles - and so my 'niche' is to contibute images and narrative on less well-known types. By definition, there is less published material on these, and so the articles will, of necessity, be shorter. Most can never reach higher assessment categories. However - they are always noticeably better than stubs - and "a photograph can speak a 1000 words" - so they say! I sometimes have personal knowlege of the relevant type which would add - but this is 'original research' and therefore 'verboten' ! Lastly - I'm jealous - you've flown a Vampire T.11 ! The nearest that I can get to that is to have flown in a Delfin, P-51 and B-17. Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just to disagree slightly - the types I cover have little on published on them - so, so far as I'm concerened, the article is 'finished' - or 'as complete as can be'. In evidence - it's not often that other Wikipedians add much more detail to the articles that I have initiated. RuthAS (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that there is a dearth of info, but to leap in soon after an article is opened and say it's finished is probably a tad premature. I have found that over time articles fill out, even ones with little source material, even if it is just expansion of prose and general editting. Re-assessment in a few years will maybe show improvements. Regarding the Vampire:I was just P2 -I had assisted the owners with an engine change after an in-flight emergency, and flew with the pilot from RAF Hullavington, (where I was flying with Bannerdown gliding club), to RAF Odiham for the families day there. I was supposed to get out before the display, but we were a bit late so Paul taxied back to the runway and took off straight away, with the fuel gauge reading not a lot.Petebutt (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Brighton Airport

In my discussions about this 'stub' issue, I have asked for, but not been responded to, an example of an article about a similar airport that was not a stub, i.e., what is it that could be said about the airport that wasn't. You will note that the article on Brighton airport has an airport diagram. I challenge you to find an article on similarly-sized airport that I did not author that has an airport diagram. You won't find one, because the FAA does not make diagrams for small airports. I created the diagram. This was a time-consuming process since I had to use aerial photography to create the diagram and this required a lot of calculations to get a measure of accuracy. I hope you can appreciate how arbitrary it seems to me to classify an article as a 'stub' for what appears to be simply a superficial evaluation of the amount of text in the article. Dwight Burdette (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Dwight Burdette

That brings up another problem as the diagram that you created is verboten, being regarded as "Original research", yes i know. I have had anecdotal stuff deleted as original research myself. Don't worry about the article being classed as a stub. it just means there is room for improvement. Anyway someone else may come along and think "Why isn't this article start class or B-class" and elevate it. Once you've written an article you lose most of your rights over it, it becomes the peoples property, a bit like Communism should have been. There should be a sixth pillar of wikipedia wisdom:= Keep cool, don't lose your rag, it's only words on a word processor!! Petebutt (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of responding positively with a example of an article about a similar airport that is not a stub, you responded with a allegation, which I vigorously reject, that I have violated the Wikipedia ban on original research followed by a condescending suggestion that I not take it classication personally since I must be resigned to the possibility of anyone similarly contesting the classification for any arbitrary reason. I will not be checking or watching this page for a response.Dwight Burdette (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

DeeBee, if you do read this, I don't think my response was harsh or rude, it isn't a pissing contest, or a matter of life and death, just Wikipedia, get over it.Petebutt (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Airlines Discussion pages

Dear Petebutt, I've noticed that you are one of the editors grading and adding discussion pages to new articles about airlines. I therefore come to call your attention to the following articles which I have created and which still need your analysis. Thanks. Aerolloyd Iguassu, Companhia Itaú de Transportes Aéreos, ETA – Empresa de Transporte Aéreo, SAVAG – Sociedade Anônima Viação Aérea Gaúcha, SETE Linhas Aéreas, Sol Linhas Aéreas, TABA – Transportes Aéreos Bandeirantes, TAC – Transportes Aéreos Catarinense, Transportes Aéreos Nacional, VASD – Viação Aérea Santos Dumont, Whitejets. (Brunoptsem (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC))

Thanks! You taught me something new today! (Brunoptsem (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Grob moves

How did you determine that Grob doesn't use spaces in its designations? The company website at http://www.grob-aircraft.com/ does use them, at least it appears that way on my screen. - BilCat (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A question of perception. Having looked again I will have to agree with you. Noe I have to change them all back again i suppose. Thanks for the dig in the ribsPetebutt (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I was actually giving you the benifit of the doubt with the screen comment - some web pages do appear differently depending on the machine and software being used. Anyway, this is why we recomend discussing move issues first - it can save alot of unnecessary work, and we've all been there a time or two. - BilCat (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ho or H 229?

What is the actual designation for the aircraft or should there be an alternative designation given? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

DYK for Autogiro Company of America AC-35

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

List of RAF stations

Please note, Borneo is split between three countries. A bit of research is needed to determine which country each RAF base belonged to. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Applebay Zuni

Orlady (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica

Sure - I was actually intending, later today, to do a run-through of the whole category and tag all the talkpages that needed tagging. I can do that quite handily with AWB, usually. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of HAL Lancer for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article HAL Lancer, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HAL Lancer until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

wtf?

I have moved Aero-engine manuf template to User:Petebutt/sandbox. It was neither an article nor a template and what on earth had it to do with aero-engines? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aero-engine manuf template

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.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Racklever (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how this got into the general population. It should have stayed in my sandbox!Petebutt (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

South Molton

How have you come across South Molton, Essex? It doesn't show in the comprehensive List of United Kingdom locations: South for example. Best Wishes. S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, just a glich in the table I constructed. Should be South Molton, Devonshire. Thanks for pointing it out, I would have blithely carried on without realising.Petebutt (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So, since there is no 'South Molton, Essex', there is no need to disambiguate 'South Molton, Devonshire' from it, is there? Dubmill (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

St Germans

You have moved this to St Germans, Cornwall. Why? You may not be aware of the naming conventions for UK places. Please check these out before creating any more redirects or disambiguations. S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To disambiguate it fron St. Germans , Norfolk!!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't one. Please check that places exist before creating redlinks, unnecessary geodis pages etc. S a g a C i t y (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but I have to put some faith in my sources or I would never get anything done. Where my source gives a name i have to assume that a. it exists and b. It is spelt correctly in full;witness Wiggenhall St. Germans!! Personally i don't see your objection to redlinks, they are a good indicator that an article needs to be written Petebutt (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)or more research is required.

• I've fixed most of the incoming links to St Germans. I've also expanded the dab page, as I found a couple of other St Germans dab pages. Having it as a dab page is actually useful, for example I found some links which should have gone to the railway station, the church, or the town in Norfolk, and I was able to fix them too. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Southminster

For some reason you deleted my question about Southminster without replying. To repeat, I noticed the recent edit you made to the Southminster page. You have sought to distinguish Southminster, Essex, from another Southminster, in Norfolk. Can you advise where the latter place is? I cannot seem to find a Southminster in Norfolk. Dubmill (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your question is answered below.Petebutt (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

South Molton southminster et. al

I have been trying to disambiguate a list I have produced , but some errors crept in with place names falling out of synch with the rest of the table. All should be OK now I hope. Apologies for missing your question, it got caught up in the mayhem. So, South Molton, Essex does not exist, apologies. Southminster, Norfolk does not exist and Southery, Devonshire is looking decidedly dodgy. Anymore questions. At least i am checking the table and not leaving it to others to tidy up.Petebutt (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Wikipedia policies so this might seem like a stupid question, but if there is no Southminster other than the Southminster in Essex, why was there any need to disambiguate it in the first place? Surely 'Southminster' should have been sufficient on its own, or am I missing something? (and the same with South Molton, again a unique place name) Dubmill (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered that question, see abovePetebutt (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I misunderstood. I'll go ahead and change the page back to the way it was before you edited it. Dubmill (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your 29 Aug 2009 revision to SZD 36 Cobra 15

You messed up the specification table with your revision, so that it doesn't show on the wikipage. I suggest you don't mess with those tables unless you know what you are doing. --Raymondwinn (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest what you are talking about. As at my last revision of that articele Revision as of 22:24, 22 June 2010 the specifications were showing fine. Whatever the problem was was trivial and certainly not justifying blowing off with a full broadside. This is only wikipedia, calm down.Petebutt (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked again and there was a problem, I or someone before me neglected to put 'met' in the units line. Is that worth having a coronary?Petebutt (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

and by the way the convention, arrive at by consensus, is that only one set of specs is required per article, so you choose which to keepPetebutt (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

List of RAF stations

Wasn't RAF Rye in Kent (Romney Marsh)? Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Mind boggling amount of work involved in the building of the extensive tables at List of RAF Stations. At the risk of sounding churlish after your monster effort could I suggest one small change there? Would it be possible to to have a table of 'Current overseas RAF stations' in the present position and a separate table of 'Former overseas RAF stations' lower down the page just under the table of Former RAF stations? What do you think? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 08:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No problemPetebutt (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have spent last week and the weekend working on two new station entries RAF Harlaxton and RAF Metheringham. Could you cast your eyes over them and let me have any suggestions or changes before I move on to creating the rest of the missing Lincolnshire station entries (and improving some of the other existing but rather dire efforts). 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just completed another RAF Coleby Grange and I am quite pleased with this effort. The only down side is that it has made me dissatisfied with previous attempts and I will have to go back and rework them. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added a few links to the table. I know that they may be repeats but my philosophy is that tables and lists should show all links to obviata shuttling between sections to hunt for an active link. RAF Coleby Grange now B-class

RNAS Ford

Petebutt, I can only assume you're intending to fill out the redirect at RNAS Ford. In the meantime I've redirected it to Her Majesty's Prison Ford. Given the naming convention used for the rest of the prisons, shouldn't that be Ford (HM Prison) anyway? Yours, Shem (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole point was that someone had re-directed RNAS Ford, when there is very little there. As for the Prison re-naming I admit to not knowing of any convention. What I re-named it to is what I feel would be best, to stop the prison articles hi-jacking other place names. The same was true of Lindholme!!Petebutt (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Operation Saracen and Operation Banquet

Thank you for taking an interest in the article Operation Saracen and Operation Banquet. I have not heard of Operation Saracen before and I am wondering what your sources are - unreferenced material will have to be removed. Can you please explain the text "The overall plan was initially known as Operation Saracen, from Spring 1942." as I am pretty sure that is not what you meant to write - Operation Banquet clearly started in 1940. Happy editing, Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the reference, if you want to check it. Maybe the author of the source got his knickers in a twist, but he has proved quite reliable up to now. The reference cited in the original article did not specifically mention that BANQUET started in 1940, just that plans were formulated.Petebutt (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont have that book. What does the reference acually say about Operation Saracen and Operation Banquet? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Operation Saracen and Operation Banquet - a more appropriate place. Please continue there. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)