User talk:BilCat/archive12

Hi Bill - I've read your comments on your removal of my edit on the Mother Ship page and I have responded on my talk page and i'd be grateful if you could take a look - thank you. 81.155.193.229

Hi Bill, thanks for fixing that abortive page move on these articles. I am not sure if all this marketing name stuff is being pushed by fancruft or the company marketing department (hopefully not, I give them more credit than that). I have added notes to both talk pages asking people to gain consensus rather than doing it any more. At least the next reverts can reference the talk pages! - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cessna seems to change or add to their product names (not numbers so much) as often as most people change their socks! Or so it seems! THe model numbers alone seems the best way to go at this point. - BillCJ (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So much so that it is WikiProject policy! - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but don't tell these guys the Cessna Citations don't follow that pattern! Alan Radecki set up the most of the Citation articles, and I followed his pattern ont he articles that I did. Alan did a good job, as both the names and numbers are quite confusing! In the case of the Citations, they are better known by the names than by the numbers, as far as I can tell. That's an exception I don't see any need to change, though we may well have to explain it at some point to these new guys. - BillCJ (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the kind remarks. Glad to have been able to insert an image of this short-lived type. I had been lucky enough to fly in the 'chopper' from JFK to 60th Street - so took a shot of it after landing. Will try to keep contributing, including photos, but perhaps at a slower rate during the coming summer months! RuthAS (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. The aircraft carrier with lowest displacement is the HTMS Chakri Naruebet. --220.150.94.243 (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B, take a look at some of the edits taking place which remove large amounts of text complete with cites, see:this FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

A bot fixed the refs and I added a lot of the text back as shown in this diff. The user is right about redundant A-10C info to a certain extent. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My source is Kenneth R. Timmerman (The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991). The SIPRI Arms Transfers Database provides a figure of forty-five, but Timmerman says a total of forty-eight were actually sold to Iraq in 1984. SIPRI data alone is not thorough enough (its database doesn't even mention the eight Agusta-Bell 212 ASWs sold to Iraq in the same year). Timmerman's figure is compiled from SIPRI, DMS, IISS and Military Powers Encyclopedia, plus interviews with Howard Teicher and other Reagan administration officials. In addition, Timmerman was invited to give testimony on this subject in 1992. [1] He even took a photograph one of the helicopters in Iraq before the first Gulf War. Here is an unrelated picture. [2] Other sources also give 48 as the total figure. Dynablaster (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the date to that entry. Iraq no longer has Bell 214/214STs as of late 2008 per Flight International. See World Air Forces Directory (pdf) for more that data. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Other users have mentioned this point also - but when I mentioned this to some different users, they said it didn't really matter and it was better to change things to uniform (with spaces). When you reverted the changes, you also reverted useful cosmetic changes - including changing Image: to File: and fixing a references problem. I'll talk to some more users about this problem - as I am unsure where to stand now! If the outcome is to remove the changes of ==Heading== -> == Heading == - then I will fix that.

Hopes this helps,

The Helpful One 12:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job bringing this to the bot owner's attention, Bill. Making the section label spacing consistent would be fine but changing all them to add or remove the spaces is not helpful and a waste of time/effort. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tenmei has filed an ArbCom case against me and I have done a little research on Tenmei and noted you have interacted with this user. Can you help provide an opinion about him? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty/Evidence

I still feel it is best for you to present what you know about this user as to help ArbCom come to a correct judgement. This user has accused me of "distorting" him, so I have contacted several users who has interacted with him so they can verify what I said is correct. Take care in your editing.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. You should know that Strike aircraft redirects to Ground attack aircraft, which is what made me think the terms were synonyms. See also my changes to Joint Strike Fighter Program. Isaac R (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, could you please look in on this article? An editor is adding lots of speculative material to it, and it seems that the entire project may have been canceled. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just noticed that. Jim tends to go overboard on that page every so often, and keeps trying to turn it into a ship class/specific article, despite the fact that it is just a program at this point. Especially "interesting" to me, besides the vague references to the F-35B version, were claims on the CH-148 being used as a shipboard transport - I hadn't seen anything on that use as yet, and the Toronto Globe and Mail has cancelled the CH-148 program anyway :) Do you have a link on the ship program's current status? I've not seen one recently, but I've not been unable to look for one as yet. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the list of things to check next time I'm near a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships (probably Wednesday or Thursday). Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the "future" element of this project is quite specious as the DND has not given a "green light" to any naval programs since the military has been bogged down in our Afghanistan morass. The issue of replacing new equipment for both the ground and air forces is paramount and the navy is getting short shrift. There is little likelihood of the so-called "Future Canadian Amphibious Assault Ship" ever being realized, unless some bright bulb can figure a way to make it work in the desert where we seem to be committed for the next generation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Are you sure you read this correctly? here The statements were: 3 for, 2 against, one ambivalent. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The consensus there is against its general use except for multi-level TOCs. And I'm serious on this: I don't count Dave's opinion on anything, as he's shown himself to be very disingenuous. The SR-71 TOC is probably just a bit long a 800x600 laptop, but it's still only 2 effective levels. Since you've "de-headinged" the Ref section (I've no problem with that!), I don't see the TOC-limit's need. As you noted,, the SR-71 page is large, which actually makes showing more levels more useful, not less, as it enables jumping to the sub-section without scrolling through very long main-heading sections. (THe Design section is about a fifth of the article's length.) Anyway the SR-71 article probably does have too many main-level headings, with several non-standard sections which could perhaps be consolidated, as could some of the Design section's subheadings. I'll try to look at it this week to see what can be done. BTW, any comments on the preceeding Canadian-related discussion? - BillCJ (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Btw, Bill, if a toggle is added to show the full list, then I will have NO problem with the TOClimit being used on any page. But right now, there is no way to see the full list at all. I did ask at Template talk:TOClimit about adding a show-full-list toggle, but only got one response, this from an editor who wasn't able to make the tweaks himself. I am asking on another editor's page tonight to see if he knows how to do this, or at least can point me to someone who can. We'll see what happens. - BillCJ (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the issue as I see it, the question did not get a full airing and as for the editors involved, I'll see your Dave with my H****n (much the same category), which brings it to the following, me (sort of for),Graeme Leggett (sort of for) versus you (sort of against). I find that the TOC is not all that useful for most editors as it is a great big use of space. It may not be useful for editors like yourself who do a lot of fixups but I personally find it distracting to know that there are five campaigns in which the Gladiator fought, it's all just its operational history to me. The SR-71 and Concorde articles are classic examples of how the TOC has grown to enormous proportions. I think the TOC limit is useful in large articles only and my experimenting with it was to elicit responses. Guess what, after you and the gate-keeper, M. H****n (I'll tell you more about our WW1 fan some other time), no one else cared and some GraemeLeggett and the inevitable DG appreciated it. Maybe the laundry means more airing before people throw it out with the wash... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not that familiar with MVH, so I'll accept your assessment. My main issue with this is that your soulution to TOC length leaves me no option to expand it, where as Jeff (Fnlayson) suggested, the "Hide" feature can remove the TOC altoether when needed. I did find something you might be interested at Help:Section#Globally limiting the TOC depth. This might be a bit complicated for you to implement, and it too is permanent while enabled (you can't toggle for a full view of the TOC, as far as I know. I'll play around with it, and see how it works. If it will override the TOClimit template, then that will solve my personal objection. However, I'd still like to see a toggle implemented so that other users have the option too. This does seem to be a battle of personal preferences that not many others care about, but I am really working on a solution. I'll try to look at the Global limiter later today, and I'll see what I can come up with. The editor I contacted has not responded as yet. Finally, although we do have some contentious head-to-head confrontations, we haven't let it get personal, and I for one still value your edits and opinions, even when I disagree with them. Our Western culture today doesn't seem to understand that many males enjoy, even thrive, on confrontational "problem-solving", and that it is often very productive in its outcome. However, too much "confrontation", especially when it gets personal, si more than I can handle, so I have had to learn to bow out of some situations for health's sake. - BillCJ (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the vein of the latest "flic", I Love You, Man!, I actually look forward to our exchanges as they are always fiery, full of bombast (on both of our parts, especially me of the overly inflated ego) and yet, dare I say, courtly. Since joining this WickyWacky community, I have discovered many "friends" from parts far and near. I have even had the good fortune to have met two or three of these Wiki penpals in person and have been constantly amazed at the camaraderie that has been proffered. I count you as one of these Wiki "pals" (now don't go blubbering on me...) As to the TOC limit, it is such a minor issue that it really doesn't mean a heck of a lot to most editors. It isn't even my concept or device as I merely observed another contributor using it to effect. Sometimes, it's useful, sometimes it's not. My shorts are not in a knot about it. FWiW, see my comments in the earlier "string" about the Canajan toy dinkies. Bzuk (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bill: I wonder if you didn't wield too large a hammer in your reversion of my updates to the Cessna 180 article. Perhaps we can review and discuss a few of them individually:

• I added the date, aircraft identification and pilot information of the maiden flight of the aircraft, believing that this is historically significant and warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. You deleted this. I cited an article on the web written by the test pilot. You deleted it, too.

• I added the year of the first flight in the infobox. You deleted it.

• I changed the language in the opening sentence from,

Cessna introduced the heavier and more powerful 180, which eventually came to be known as the Skywagon (a name first applied only to the more-powerful 185) as a complement to the Cessna 170.

which is at best, awkward and run-on; at worst, it would send my high school English teacher running for her yardstick. I replaced it with two simpler sentences and removed the parenthetical:

Cessna introduced the heavier and more powerful 180 as a complement to the Cessna 170. It eventually came to be known as the Skywagon, a name first applied only to the more-powerful 185.

You returned the article to the original language. Perhaps this is a stylistic difference; I stand by my claim that the language change improved readability.

If only for future guidance, I'd appreciate a note below with some indication as to what you found wrong with these additions. Regards & thanks, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 19:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I tried to keep what I could, but the way the paragraphs had been moved, the diff did not show the exact changes, and I honestly did not see much difference when I compared the two sections. Feel free to reword the paragraphs again, since you know what you did, but blease try to follow the section outline. I have to go offline now, or I would work on it myself. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first flight info has been restored to article. See if that covers your content addition... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bill, no worries. I understand that diff can sometimes be not your friend, especially in the case where sections are shuffled. Sadly, it's little different today than it was with Multics' compare_ascii command; you'd think software would improve in ~40 years! I wonder if my change to the section heading (Design and Development to Lineage) didn't set off an alarm, especially that it took a liberty with the recommendation set forth in the contents page you cited. (Of the 5 or so sentences in the section, 3 had nothing to do with design nor development, but rather with lines of descent — hence my choice of the heading Lineage.) Anyway, we're good. See you 'round & best regards, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 03:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why did you revert my edits on Spanish Navy? They were totally legit.--93.45.129.131 (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they weren't - you removed text and dates from the headings, which match the format in the other headings in that section. - BillCJ (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who says the current format is the right one? Don't you think they're too long as they're now?--93.45.129.131 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see what happened. When I looked at your edit, you had only made one change, but ny the time I reverted it, you had added the new infobox, and the software reverted that too. I've restored that. Perhaps the heading can be shorter, but considering the time frames covered, the dates are useful. - BillCJ (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should leave in the timeframe, but some headings are in clear violation of the guideline you linked me, such as "The Spanish Navy's Decline (19th century)", which according to the Manual should be "Decline (19th century)" or even just "Decline".--93.45.129.131 (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you not answering means you're ok with it, right?--93.45.129.131 (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thank-you note for your cleanup of Wright Whirlwind for me. I'm sorry that I had left it a half-done mess. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Engines#Wright_Whirlwind for a more complete response. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill I couldn't find an article on the Yak-14 so I wrote one, only to find out that one already existed under the title Yakovlev Yak-14. I don't know why the search couldn't find it under "Yak-14", but in any case, I edited the Yakovlev Yak-14 and abandoned the Yak-14 article. Could you please delete the Yak-14 article and add the title "Yak-14" as an alternate title to the Yakovlev Yak-14 article? Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Ken. While I can't technically "delete" aritcles, as I'm not an admin, all that is needed in this case is to make the page a redirect to the original article, which I have done. I've been "caught out" by WP's searches before myself. You might want to try seaching with www.google.com when creating articles, as WP articles usually come first in Google searches, and it is a better search engine. Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did indeed. I was thinking about using "Google" to search for wikipedia articles, and now I'm definately making the switch!! Odd as it may seem.

Would you be so good as to add the title "Yakovlev Yak-21" as an alternate title to the "Yakovlev Yak-15" page? That way people can find the Yak-21 information, which is on the Yak-15 page. Thanks again - Ken keisel (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I made of the B-25 page was not a test edit. When the page loaded in my browser the Specifications section was completely unformatted and appeared as plain text. Removing the comment tag from the template appeared to fix the formatting so I left it alone. Apparently it was either a browser or a server hiccup. I'm not entirely sure how you decided it was vandalism or a test edit, considering as how nothing was added, nothing (visible) was removed, and my edit comment said nothing about a test edit. I'm not new to Wikipedia. Dziban303 (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Test warning as a measure of good faith. Vague, misleading edit summaries are the hallmark of vandals, so you're fortunate I didn't give you a vandalism warning for a misleading edit summary. I saw nothing wrong on my browser, so I proceeded from position. If you had been a newbie, I'd have given you a "Test1" warning, not a "Test2". Check the page tommorrow, and if it's still messed up, then remove the note again, with an edit summary explaining it in more detail. - BillCJ (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that title Yankee Stadium now points to the aricle about the new stadium and the old article was finally moved to Yankee Stadium (1923). I tried to have it done back in February, but it was moved back. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD tag you placed on the article has been removed (not by myself). The incident meets WP:AIRCRASH, specifically It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target. If you still feel that the article should be deleted, please raise it at WP:AFD. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "military or terrorist action", just a confused young man with apparent mental problems. Thanks anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that article is more of a fit for Wikinews than Wikipedia.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, so long. I've seen you've recently reverted in Supercarrier (well done!). Just to know... do you have access (or know anyone who has) to the source that is cited about the NYTimes calling the HMS Ark Royal a "supercarrier" pre-WW2?. Thks, DPdH (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this; don't you think that a personal message explaining why he is being reverted would be way more helpful than six boilerplate vandal messages? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. He's been on WP long enough to know that he needs to cite his sources, and not write OR. - BillCJ (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition, WP:DTTR applies. However, he might have created his account in '04, but he's only made 328 edits since then. I really feel that a more personal message would have been much more helpful here. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then leave him one, and remove the warnings. - BillCJ (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want a sofixit reply; I was looking for you to correct your error. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I don't consider it an error on my part! Moving on now. - BillCJ (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about applying for adminship (again). Any feedback you could give before I go live with this draft would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smiling. (Laughing, actually.) No problem about restoring word "please" to hidden instructions. I was responding to a something I'd experienced with customer support, where every instruction was preceded by "please". "Please open your browser." "Please select the file button." "Now please select the video card corresponding to your computer." Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the clean-up. I also reverted the change that put numerals at the beginning of the sentence, as I believe the MOS says to not start sentences with numerals, as did most of my English teachers. I know there's a better way to say it, but it's nearly 5am, and my brain refuses to think of one! - BillCJ (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought I was up late!

I know we're not supposed to indulge in personal feelings, but I really love the look of that plane. If they'd bring her around to the local airbase for one of those pricey tourist rides, I'd sign up in a shot. Sleep well...when you get to it. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill! Have been away for 10 days and now wish to contribute to WPAVIATION again! However, I've encountered a snag that I don't know how to overcome. I've just added an article on the U.S. Columbia JL amphibian of the mid-1940's and wish to complement it with a short article on its constructor, the Columbia Aircraft Corporation. The aircraft manufacturer template will not allow me to proceed because there is a redirect to Giuseppe Mario Bellanca, who helped to found the firm in 1927. The coverage of Columbia under the article on Sr/Mr Bellanca is minimal, so there's arguably need to amplify it with a separate article - but I dont know how to carry on! I dont have the confidence to just delete the redirect at the top of the Bellanca article. Please could you advise me how to proceed? Thanks! RuthAS (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth, just edit the Columbia Aircraft Corporation page, delete the redirect, and add your content. That's all there is too it. I've seen your work enough to know you should have enough contnet that deletion should not be a problem. I'll watch the new page, and help you with all the formatting stuff as needed. Once you list it at the new aircraft articles page, you should get some more help too. I lok forward to seeing the article! Good luck! Btw, if you get stuck on something, just ask. I don't mind, no matter how simple it may be. - BillCJ (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bill. Will try tomorrow. In meantime have located more material on Columbia to use in the Wiki article. RuthAS (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. I didn't block Levineps or delete anything, and his block was (as far as I know) not related to any AfDs. He'd been warned previously about splitting articles without discussion (many times, actually), and Moni3 followed through on her warning. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THat's becuase there have been NO AFDs on the Logo articles! And no discussions on the team pages, or at WP:NFL. THat should have been done earlier this week. Instead, he was baited into revert warring, and blocked for a week! Very odd indeed. - BillCJ (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see it being strange if he was indeed blocked for revert warring. This is a longer term issue, though. He has a habit of splitting articles without discussion beforehand or after, which is pretty irritating for people and often requires that the content be re-merged and the child article deleted. If it was specific to this NFL issue then more discussion would have made sense, but since its a more general trend for him it wasn't really necessary. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I didn't see someone had already let you know about the block. You're free to remove this and any other message from your talkpage, of course. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. I was irriated that this hadn't been discussed elsewhere, and took it out one you, as I perceived you to be piling on. Sorry! - BillCJ (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I understand your point. On my side, I was unaware of the discussion on the user's page (Yes, I should have looked), but he was being reverted in typical revert-war style, with no discussion on the Titans or NFL project talk pages. I have posted at WT:NFL to enlist further comments on the articles. Regardless of how they were created, I think they could be useful, especially if they cover histroicaly logos too, and can be more indepth with the history behind the logos and colors. - BillCJ (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BillCJ, that wasn't very funny. Moni3 is not going to block you for a month for anything. It you think a week is excessive, then why don't you talk to her about it! So maybe Moni and I did something wrong, but Levinips has chronicly split pages inappropriately and has been warned for it. What do you think about it? Should there really be a separate article just for the team's logo and uniform when it would work on the main article just fine? Further, it would be better to keep them together because the images have to be: File:AFCS-Uniform-Combination-TEN.PNG and File:AFC-Throwback-Uniform-TEN.PNG are both fair use and their rationale is only for the main article. Yes, you are right that this is useful information that can cover historical logos as well, but for the time being there is no need for a split. Reywas92^Talk 23:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not hardly. And it was NOT unconstructive. Your entry that the Packard Merlin V-1650 powered the entire line of P-40 aircraft was wrong. How can Wikipedia approach being a reference source if you cannot post correct information or revert changes made from an error to truth back to an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.134.36 (talk)

That's because the P-40F and L were powered by Packard Merlins, as stated in the P-40 article. I've clarified this. As unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism, please use edit summaries in the future. Even if you're wrong, a summary explains your edits, and you won't get warned for vandalism. - BillCJ (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, would you be so good as to remove the title Yakovlev Yak-5 as an alternate title from the Yakovlev Yak-1 article. The Yak-5 was never a varient of the Yak-1, and the information contained in the article is completely bogus. Also, would you please add the title Yakovlev Yak-21 as an alternate title to the Yakovlev Yak-15 article. I've included information about the Yak-21 on the Yak-15 article, and there is not enough to warrant a seperate article. Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill I'm just want to put RETIRED ON MY PAGE, but unfortunetlty i can't. I've asked AQMD to help me, but you have not made that possible.

I would do it myself but...

So if you have advice would be appreicted 71.160.41.239 (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Akanigg[reply]

An IP kept making changes to your user page. That's not allowed. If you want to disappear, see Wikipedia:Right to vanish. Note that this is for editors in good standing. You may be able to email wikien-bureaucratslists.wikimedia.org to contact them about this. I must say that I am dissapointed with your choice of friends, particularly AQMD, who seems to show up only when another account has problems with copyright issues. His claim of "having seen the negatives" of stolen digital pics was quite amusing, but none-the-less crap. Some admins are looking into his account, so hopeflly he'll be "disappearing" soon also. - BillCJ (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, you was really quick to revert my latest change to the T-28 Trojan infobox! ;) Can you please let me know where that guideline (and maybe others I'm unaware of) is specified?
Many thanks, DPdH (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No hay problema. The intructions for the main infobox are at Template:Infobox Aircraft Type. While there is no specific guideline on which users to include in the infobox, it is limited to 4 users total (1 primary, 3 "more users"). As a general practice, we list the country of origin, the first nation to order the aircraft, or an otherwise major user in Primary field. In the More Users field, we generally list other major users, usually by numbers in service, but not always. Hope that helps. As to general guidelines on aircraf tpages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content is a good place to start. Chao! - BillCJ (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Bill! Thanks for the guidance. I'll keep a link to this in my "talk". Hasta la vista! DPdH (talk)

Hi Bill, thanks for your request about helping with the Helibras article. I'll do my best, ahthough not having too much spare time will not rush this unless you believe it's "urgent".
Cheers, DPdH (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, noted your edit on the P.1127. I think, at the time it was called Bristol Pegasus, or at least that's what Mason says in his P.1127 article. In his Kestrel piece, it has changed to Bristol Siddeley Pegasus and he has the Harrier powered by the Rolls-Royce Bristol Pegasus. These are probably right in that they were the names used at the time, when the industry was in such flux and takeovers rife. Anyway, I'll leave it as Pegasus but link it to Rolls-Royce Pegasus to avoid complication and ambiguity.TSRL (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I stated "Harrier variant ever used the engine described at Bristol Pegasus!!" The name was used for two different engines, but linked to the wrong engine. I only mentioned it to point out that sometimes links don't go where we think they do! I make that mistake often myself. Btw, I think I finally got the images sorted out. I have been up way too late tonight! (with physical problems) - BillCJ (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the image, which is one I took as a lad with a little camera from far away, so quality is not good: its point is to show the P.1127 in the air and in particular to show the very different wing of the first five P.1127s. I've altered the caption to emphasise this; if we can get a better shot, great, but for now it's all we've got. Anyway, you've restored it now. BTW, but on the same sort of topic, is the P.1127 in the infobox the last prototype? It appears to have a swept trailing edge and the intakes say not Kestrel so it must be .TSRL (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill. Don't lose any sleep over this i/d! Milbourne had added XP831 to the caption, I repeated my doubts, he sent the link to original pic. I enhanced it a bit, and the serial is XP83? where ? almost certainly 1. So it must be XP831 and the angle that makes the trailing edge look swept. Digitised images are a blessing.TSRL (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Bill. Your P.1127 edit of 24 Oct 06 (first one) seems to be the first use of the designation P.1127(RAF), which my only serious source, Mason, doesn't use. It would be good to have an inline cite for that, if you can recall it. Thanks,TSRL (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) I've added the source now. I had only been on WP for about 2 months at the time, and hadn't mastered citing my sources. Thanks for the reminder. - BillCJ (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think your recent tagging is helping anything? I have a detailed, excruciatingly detailed, reference that states in no uncertain terms that the L-1000 was the first jet engine to be designed in the US, and you're saying it's "dubious"? Are you sure you're using the word properly? After all, in spite of having a discuss tag, you didn't discuss it either on that talk page or mine. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, it wasn't actually vandalism. "In 1996 baseball hit its peak attendance rates with 1% of Australians over 15 (133,000) having attended a baseball game that year.", but I'll make sure to reference it. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 16:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't appear to be in good faith - sounded like a back-handed compliment, esp. with the comparisons to lawn bowling. Not sure they need to be there at all. - BillCJ (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, I give up. Ken has added his F-35 section/links back to the Yak-43 article after your edit, and I've lost patience with trying to police the Yak articles where he feels the need to make one small issue into more than it really is. I'm just going to stick to keeping his personal agenda squelched in articles where it clearly is not notable, beyond a brief mention. Best of luck trying to edit in articles where an editor clearly feels a sense of ownership and is unwilling to listen to other POV or seek consensus. ViperNerd (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken usually edits WWII-era aircraft articles, and can be a bit of a bear to work with (so can I sometimes!). I think he's just got some new books on Yak aircraft (airliners also), and so is trying to contribute. However, he seems to be adding synthesis based on these sources, but without his primary source to look at (Gunston in the Yak fighters' cases) I can't double-check his references. I'm going to see if I can acquire the Gunston Yakovlev book in the next week or so, but since I can't work (thus no steady income), that might not happen right away. - BillCJ (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, that's a big problem with utilizing books instead of online sources as references. For the most part, very few editors can "check the work," so to speak, and that's important on Wikipedia not only from a standpoint of making sure information in an article is accurate, but it makes it basically impossible to know if copyrights are being infringed. Much of Ken's editing appears to be sourced to books, and a lot of it reads in a manner that warrants a copyvio check, especially since he repeats his work across multiple articles. ViperNerd (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a problem, esp since the "old school" prefers books to online sources. I've asked at WT:AIR to see if anyone has a copy of the book, or access to it. - BillCJ (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, a lot of details are not online or not online and free. Also, thanks for the Lightning reference fix in the F-35 article. I checked the ref for the P-38, but not that one. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Also, my remarks in my edit summay were not aimed at you - you added the fact tag insted of hiding the info, so others would know there was a problem. I'm not exactly sure why BZuk chose to hide it rather than to add a disputed tag, but Oh well! I missed that edit during the flurry of reverts of the Yak info. I clearly remeber the EE Lightning being mentioned when the name was chosen, so I was certain there was a source somewhere, so I went looking for one. I didn't really expect to find one that quickly though! The IP tried to put the correct ref in the right place, but of course didn't quite succeed. ANyway, the item is sourced naw, and that's our goal here. Thansk for your help in this! - BillCJ (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure & good job. I did not hide the text so I didn't think you meant me. I have a new-ish JSF book that covers the F-35 naming too. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empty blocks are gone from the article.

Tactical Air Support Squadron articles are being transitioned to linked articles, to cut length.

Australian, Indian, German, and British FACs are already covered (the first three of which were not in the article I replaced). Lao, Vietnamese, Khmer, and New Zealand FACs are slated to follow. I am continuing research to identify other nationalities. What else can I do for NPOV?

There is a long lead that begins with defining a FAC. I wrote this to overcome the cloud of confusion that plagued the prior article.

I don't what else to illustrate this article with other than FAC aircraft. Maybe I just have an impoverished imagination.

Style? I'm a novelist and I am trying not to be one here. Tips on writing encyclopedic will be welcome.

Georgejdorner (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really am unable to deal with this in-depth at this time due to personal health issues, which is why I asked for help at MILHIST. I'm glad to see that others are stepping in and helping out. This is all part of the process, so don't let it discourage you from contributing. As a novelist, group editing may be a new experience for you, but it generally works. I'm actually better at technical writing, which is why my own attepmts at writing novels have all been stillborn! You might try starting with Wikipedia:Writing better articles for some general tips. As a professional writer (I assume), you should be able to adapt fairly quickly.

One issue I will cover here: As to the pictures, there's no problem using aircraft images, and that is encouraged. It was the use of the infoboxes that was non-standard - these are designed for use on articles about hte specific aircraft themselves. However, I think your "imagination" may have hit on something that we can do. I actually liked the placement of the infoboxes within the article, as it draws the eye to the differnt sections. Those infoboxes are modular, meaning that there are other elements that can be added to the pictures. I am going to raise the possiblilty of adding a role sub-template to the infobox that can be used as you were using them, but tailored to that type of article, at the Aircraft WikiProject Talk page. Maybe something will come of it, but perhaps not. - BillCJ (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bill, I noticed that you had moved "Embraer C-390" to "Embraer KC-390". One question, isn't that the designation for the tanker/transport variant only? The transport variant is still C-390, or am I wrong? --MoRsE (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it on the basis thet the KC-390 is the "launch" model, per this FlightGlobal article, and some from other sources. The term "KC-390" is used several times in the article, even in references to exports, while "C-390" is not used at all. Btw, Embraer does not appear to have a page for the aircraft on its website as yet. - BillCJ (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, rather than protract the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MiG_42_Foxglove, what are you referring to here? I felt I was responding to your entire sentence except "per nom", but if I read you wrong I apologize. Personally, I believe that if the content of the article is worth keeping but not the article itself, then !voting "delete" actually hurts the afd process (see WP:BEFORE) and things like Redirect or Merge make more sense. What do you think? ZabMilenko 06:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand you now. Up this point, most of the contnet of the article has not been worth keeping! It appears to be a poor translation of the Czech page, and thus probably also a copyvio in part. I don't mind you making your own proposal, and if I decide to support it, I will. I really thought your own entry stood on it's own, and that mine really didn't need any comments. I'm sorry for my reply, and I will strike out my comments. - BillCJ (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "votes" to delete are part of the process. And strictly speaking, they are not "votes", but opinions, and the closing editor/admin will weigh the comments and opinions in making a final decision. In truth, most votes to delete include an awareness that a merge or redirect may be the result of the discussion - at least I do. That's why I felt the comemnts weren't necessary to be appeneded to mine - Your's stood well enoough on their own. - BillCJ (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. No harm done I don't think because our comments spurred a discussion where you ended up raising some decent points. See you around the wiki. ZabMilenko 07:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where the discussion for this took place? I can't keep up with every update in consensus. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wrong on that one, sorry. They had a poll a couple of months ago, and the pro-autoformatting side lost badly, and the anti-'s have been removing them everywhere. If it changed again, I had't heard. By the way, do you have a clue how to fix the specs template that is causing the extra line dispute? Several editors have tried and faild. However, as soon as it's fixed, the extra space will be gone, and the space needed int he edit screen again. I don't see how the IPs edits help anything here. - BillCJ (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He/she can waste his time for all I care. It's one measly byte. I'm not going to go nuts over auto-formatting. It's just something minor I thought I'd do while I was there. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being discussed here. FYI. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I explained myself to the IP once, and he was not able to understand. I do find it odd he complains about Wikiquette after using profanity at me. Some people are just not that bright! - BillCJ (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His/her being an IP would suggest newness, whether or not they exhibit some understanding of specific subjects or Wikipedia technical topics. As you know, sometimes it takes repeated efforts of explanation to register understanding with some users. Have some compassion: not everyone is endowed with such a great intellect as ours. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the "complaint" against me, and was considering replying there. However, User:Stefanomencarelli has commented as a so-called "third-party". This user was banned for 1 year for the exact things I reverted him for, and I won't participate in his vendatta against me, or be reading up on the discussion anymore. I still can't read his bad English either, which is why his "contributions" are continually removed from articles by other editors besides myself, among other problems. As for why I'm staying out of the discussions altogether: less stress! With the exception of two users, the other editors don't see a problem. Oh, I'm still laughing at the IP's comment about having "fixed" the broken template! All he did was hide the problem on 2 pages - the template is still broken - he fixed nothing. And for the record, I like the line spaces on the edit screen because I have bad eyesight, and the spaces help to break up the long templates, especially after several hours at the computer. I don't see how the extra linebreak in the article itself affects anyone, other than looking a bit funny. I'll go in favor of eyesight, plus the articles won't need to be adjusted when the specs template is finally fixed. - BillCJ (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand why BITE and DNFT exist, as this case certainly shows! But I "suffer fools badly" (a common phrase in English, not a PA!), and tend to let my sarcasm loose in such cases. I still find it odd that the IP doesn't see how his behavior, not understanding of WP rules, led to this situation escalating in the first place. I lashed out in anger, and for that, of course I was wrong. Yet inspite of my intial attempts to explain my reasonings for needing the extra line break, the user seems completely oblivious to my explanations, which either means he really is dumb, or was acting in bad faith at some point, as his "instant" familirarity with WP rules might indicate. I do hope the user doesn't try to "fix" the specs template one page at a time in more articles, but next time I'll let the "proper authorities" handle him. Finally, I have a history of attacks by trolls who have employed just these tactics in the past (seemingly inocuous edits, revert warring, then feigned outrage at my reactions, and a sudden knowledge of WP rules). This whole case smells of that, as does Stefano's sudden appearance. (The troll has used Stefano in the past, tho Stefano was oblivious to the fact he was being used.) I'll be more carefull, but I'll be watching too. - BillCJ (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Troll and Stefan? They go hand-in-hand, either that or they're meatpuppets... Nuff said, have a great weekend~! --Dave1185 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for reverting my edits. I didn't realise it was deprecated. But can I just point out that they were useful to me as a reader and im sure they were to other readers too but im sure there was a good reason it was deprecated. Thank you. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 13:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I'm not to going to make a huge issue of it. When WPAIR converted fron the single infobox template to the stacked wersion, it was agreed to leave out the coding fot the subtemplates. This was done primarily because all that info is available in the templates at the bottom of the page. WHile I think they made the template too cluttered, I did use them to jump to other articles, so I do understand about their usefulness. You are welcome (genuinely) to bring it up at WT:AIR, and if the consensus supports using them, then that would be fine. As a thought, perhaps it could be added of on of the stacked templates, and placed at the bottom of Template:Infobox Aircraft Type. THe previous format was made before the introduction of the stacked templates, and we have a little more flexibility now. - BillCJ (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. As I am not very active here anymore, I will leave it to the good judgement of the active WP:AIR community. I have been using these articles for research lately and I am quite impressed with the progress WP:AIR have made with their articles in the last year. And I do apologise for having to give you the repetitive task of reverting edits. I know how tiresome they can be. Thank you. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 15:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. One question tho: Did you get the subtemplate code from the older template? I'm thinking of try out the stacked sub-template idea, I was just wondering if you knew much about writing the codes. Thanks - BillCJ (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did get it from the old template. Unfortunately I don't know much about code writing. But a stacked sub-template sounds like a good idea. WP:UKRAIL may have some users who are experienced with template code writing as they have some stacked sub templates. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daher no longer redirects to DAHER, so I suggest that my recent hatnote update to DAHER might be more appropriate. Thanks, Per Ardua (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back, but after I changed the hatnote. I do think it's a borderline case that DAHER is the primary title, but in order to move the DAB page to Daher, and admin has to perform the move. If you want that done, you'll need to propose oa moved on the DAB page's talk page. I can help you do that if you're not comfortable doing it all yourself. - BillCJ (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, great articles but the comparision of the AS350 and the AS355 are wrong for the article. The Twin Squirrel has had two completly different engine types fitted in the Allison 250 C20B and the Arrius 1A, not to mention the fact that the engine controls are routed through the floor on the 350 and the roof on the 355, the fuel tanks contruction on both types are completly different. On the 350 the vne, rate of climb, MTOW etc it is all different so with respect it should not be in the AS355 article.

The EC 130 is not an improved model of the AS350B3 it is an adaptation of the AS350 airframe and parts from the EC120 - i was working at Oxford, England when we adapted some bulged doors onto a single squirrel (G-MAGY) to carry out the original flight testing which we was told by Eurocopter is was not a new type just a adaptation that was mainly aimed at sightseeing market.

I would welcome your input on this discussion.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, point taken on the EC-130. As to the AS355 specs, I do understand the differences. It's not there as a comparison per se, but to provide the template for easy use when it was updated to the AS355 specs. The AS355 was part of the AS350 page until I split it off a few months agod - I just forgot to go back and change it, and no one else updated it either. I'll try to get to it later today. - BillCJ (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, you are a true gentleman!

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the specs have been updated - by User:Nigel Ish! This is where the cooperative nature of WP does work well, in that many users are willing to jump right in when they see a problem or need. Thanks for spotting it in the first place - I hadn't intended it to remain with the wrong specs for so long! Oh, well, sometime real life and ageing do intervene with our Wiki-plans! - BillCJ (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re [3]: you may well be correct. But the "The Bf 109 and combat tactics" section also says lbs William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully someone can check the source to see what it says. 12 lbs. may not be eqivilent to 12 inches of manifold pressure, but I really have no clue. I just reverted to what I think was originally added. - BillCJ (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the correct figures for the Spitfire are, but for comparison 32 inches (of mercury) is roughly equivalent to 15 lbs (per square inch). - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that for British fighters, manifold pressure, or boost, was expressed as a relative value, ie. a positive or negative value above/below normal ambient pressure. Hence '+12' or '-2'. For example +18 lb/sq.inch was 67" of mercury in US terms. The French, Russians and AFAIK Italians expressed manifold pressure in absolute pressures, using Hgmm. - ie. 1050 Hgmm. German practice was to express it in absolute pressure too, but using atmposphere as a unit, ie. 1.42 ata. IIRC German 1.70ata was equivalent of British +7 lbs/sq.inch or something about. Kurfürst (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BillCJ -

I'm not going to revert again at this point, but what has disappeared from my edits to yours has been the reference to and weighting of Post's Grammys and the persistence of one of his lesser known works (Murder One) occupying a central place in the article. I should have referred in my edit summary to a section I included in the Post Talk page.

FWIW, I think that chronological listing of his show's TV themes makes more sense and is more common in similar articles on Wikipedia - the general drift of most biographical articles is chronological, after all.

I will edit back in some of the disappeared stuff. Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't, I'm trying to fix it now. - 04:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooops - already did. I'll leave it alone as you edit it. Sensei48 (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my deletion of the single sentence was totally accidental, and did not require a wholesale revert. I've made my final changes, and I'm moving on to other articles. Bye. - BillCJ (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion — once I read the nomination form for the historic district, it became plain that the entire community was indeed listed. WP:NRHP has discovered that there's sometimes confusion over the nature of historic districts relative to the communities in which they're designated, so we've been doing our best to keep district and community articles apart. That's why I twice reverted your edits — I was trying to go along with standard project procedure (not simply my own ideas), and I misapplied them because I didn't realise the state of the district relative to the community. We also do our best to mention these districts (and other historic sites) in their relative articles, so I was about to add something about the district to the community article when I discovered my error. Thanks for working to ensure that the correct thing happened! Just one request — please don't sarcastically refer to me as the owner; if you check the edit history, you'll see that I've only once made any edits to the page before now. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and apology accepted. I also apologize for my behaveior and snide edit comments about ownership. It might have helped if you'd point me to a progject or WP guidleime early on, that I would have realized that histroical districts are generally covered separately. (That's just an aside - I still apologize!) Also, by evidence or proof, I was implying in the article itself, as required by WP:RS. Since the article on the town had no sources regarding the district, and the district had no article, I really didn't know if they were in the smae locality, if not coextensive. You were saying they were in the same place but not coextensive, but that's OR as far as the article itself is concerned. Granted, I did use it as a slam at you, but beyond that, there was nothing concrete for me to look at. I assume there is a source for all the districts listed on the CO historical districts page, but I don't know anything about using those (no real excuse if it is in the references), and matcing coordinates is something readers shouldn't have to be doing. That's in explanation of my reasoning, but is no way am I excusing my behavior. Thanks for checking out the info on the twon and the district. If you (or others) are going to include the template and perhaps info on the historical district in the town article, I'll need to add a hatnote to the St. Elmo Historic District (Chattanooga, Tennessee)‎ article one it's moved back to St. Elmo Historic District. If I'm not mistaken, DAB pages are generally not to include redlinks, and they aren't recommended if only two aritcles exist either. That should clear up my involvement, and clean up my messes! - BillCJ (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you wonder — I said that they were in the same place because of the coordinates: the official data provided by the NRHP database includes coordinates, which put the district in the community. Moreover, the official district description says that it's "Pitkin, Gunnison, 1st, Main, and Poplar Sts." — because Google Maps shows what looks like more than five streets in the community, I was confident that other areas weren't included. Combine that with the fact that some ghost town historic districts are described in such a way that it's obviously the entire community (look at Leesburg in Lemhi County, Idaho or Hamilton City in Fremont County, Wyoming), and it's quite confusing. In case you wonder: you can get some of the data from this National Park Service website — this is the official database; just put in data at the obvious places. Some information is only available if you download the entire database; NRHP wikiproject member Elkman has downloaded it and made it available at http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp. Clicking "create an infobox" and typing in the official NRHP name will give you the information that you can only get by downloading. Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info. Also, I meant to restore the DAB header on the St. Elmo/Chattanooga page before now, but just forgot, so thanks for getting to that. - BillCJ (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that I have not seen the teeshirt referenced by anon, nor do I believe that teeshirts are in of themselves a RS. I do believe that wikipedia is a reflection of what can be described in the world, and that sometimes wikipedia can contain inaccuracies. I did do the possible error of editting the Museum of Flight Article, with out seeing more specific references, so I found one: http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/lockheed-m-21-blackbird Peace, rkmlai (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merged because all of those vehicles were cancelled, the project never amounted to anything but pretty pictures and spent money. I felt that i merge didnt require discussion because i was just maintaining the article. sorry about the mess i created. Do you still disagree with the merge?Username 1 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]