User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 7

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. Thanks!

Alan, Thanks for your note on my talk page. No, I don't live in the AV area and haven't been "down there" in years. We moved to the Seattle area when I joined Boeing and the anchor is really down here for us. I retired from the Big B in '93 and have been busy, busy, busy with my "other wife", who floats in Lake Washington and has taken us up the Inside Passage to SE Alaska and back during 5 different boating seasons. If I lived where you do all the moss would dry out between my toes from your sunshine and heat. I'll try and do some digging, re your Mojave storage question. I'm familiar with the A-12 and SR storage that was done in the Palmdale area for many years, but not at the Mojave airport. If I find any answers I'll pass them on to you. Also, if you, or Bill CJ ( who I see visits in here ) ever want to contact me directly with a Blackbird question, my email is [email protected]. The Blackbird Reunion will be in Reno this year on 21-24 June and during 14-16 September our Seattle Museum of Flight will conduct a Blackbird Forum. Perhaps you'll attend some of these events ( 30 Habus will be here for the seattle Forum ) and we could swap lies, er I mean stories! David Dempster 05:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I've posted this issue on User:BillCJ's talk page. User:M Van Houten (his talk) didn't understood my comment about removing fixed width in images and started revert war in Albatros D.III and Pfalz D.XII articles. Please look at comments in history of these articles, seems a bit offensive. Maybe you will be able to explain him why his editions are senseless? Thanks in advance, Piotr Mikołajski 20:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Will watch these. Akradecki 20:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always edit/read on a 800px wide monitor. I agree that large, fixed thumbs are a serious annoyance, and I routinely reduces pictures that are sized at 500px, 400px, and sometimes even 350px. I fail to see, however, why pictures hardsized at 255 px are a serious annoyance. In fact, I put them at 255 px because it then comforms to the width of the infobox. If the infobox is hardsized at a width, why can't the pictures match that width? Moreover, I see that highly ranked articles like the B-17 and F-105 articles contain hardsized pictures. Several of the F-105 pictures are hardsized at 300 px, which is considerably larger than anything I use. I frankly don't understand these selective enforecement policies, nor do I understand the concern with 255 px hardsizes. M Van Houten 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion that I am a presumptous person who likes to force my view on others. In my opinion, it seems a bit presumptous of you give a detailed explanation which you apparently abandon because you simply believe I should do as you tell me to do. You tell me that hardsizes are inappropriate because they leave insufficient room for text. "[B]ecause not everyone around the world (or in the US for that matter), have nice big hi-res monitors. I sometimes edit/read on a 800px wide monitor, and having large, fixed thumbs is a serious annoyance." I argue that I do nothing that an infobox doesnt also do. Most infoboxes contain a hardsized image at the width of 255 px. Seems to me that must therefore be acceptable per the MOS. M Van Houten 19:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I really don't mind your name calling. In my experience, when people can't come up with a coherent argument, they almost always denounce others with name-calling, in hopes that they can brow-beat others into submission, and because they're offended that someone has questioned them. I'm familiar with your ilk, and I don't hold it against you. That said, I'm pretty sure we're at the end of any constructive discourse here. M Van Houten 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not often accused of being a team player, but I don't recall holding myself out as one. I make a concerted effort to improve a few articles that I'm interested in, but I'm not all that concerned with teamwork, especially in the form of people telling me to follows their rules when they don't make much sense to me. In the legal world, you would be correct, rules are rules. And in wikipedia, there are some hard and fast ones. Don't spam, don't vandalize. Here, I see you and another guy ordering me to follow a rule that seems advisory at best and illogical at worst. And I don't frankly feel compelled to obey you or the other guy. It's kind of a petty issue, but that's where I'm at. M Van Houten 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have pasted an apparently full-formed article into Tepper Aviation with the edit log "created article with GNDL-licensed text". Do you mean the GFDL? In that case, you must give attribution to the original authors, for example, with a link to the history of the original wiki it was copied from. --bd_ 17:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my fat fingers failed to type properly for the edit summary. I'll go correct that and add the appropriate links. It also needs a lot of cleanup, which I'll be doing as the day progresses. Akradecki 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment, please check Tepper Aviation#References to see if I got it worded right. Akradecki 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - - -

Tepper has had three Hercules registered - c.n. 4129, N9205T, which crashed in Angola 27 November 1989, c.n. 4582, N2189M - Lars Olausson's most recent note for it has it spotted in Basra, April 2005, and c.n. 4796, N8183J - Olausson lists comment, "op for US govt," November 2004.

I do not have a source handy to confirm the Tepper - CIA link, but I will point out that the CIA is known to have operated out of Duke Field where the 711th Special Operations Squadron flies gunships, no more than eight miles south of the Bob Sikes Airport in Crestview.

Major CIA proprietary aviation concerns have included Civil Air Transport ,(CAT), its offshoot - Air America, Air Asia, Intermountain Air (which handled the illegal export of B-26s to Portugal in 1965, in violation of U.S. sanctions - they also operated the B-17G fitted with the Robert Fulton recovery system seen at the end of Thunderball), Southern Air Transport, and several other charter companies. Marchetti and Marks state in "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" (1974), that by the early 1970s, the powers-that-be at Langley decided that Southern Air Transport's usefulness had passed. There was a real risk that the operation might turn a profit, and, by law, the excess would have to be returned to the treasury, and agency officials wanted no paper connection tieing them to SAT operations. The CIA tried to quietly dispose of Southern Air Transport in 1973, but had trouble finding a buyer, especially when three legitimate airlines raised protest that SAT was a subsidized operation competing with them for government contracts. The book describes it as "something of a fiasco for the agency". It was sold at a fire sale price to a former employee who was based in Miami, but the airline remained based in Nepal. A short while later, he liquidated much of the assets for a handsome profit.

Mark Sublette 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! Some of that, since it can be sourced, might be good to add to the SAT article, since it's rather bare. Two C-130s using Tepper call signs have recently been to Mojave, visiting ASB Avionics, who have been converting the aircraft to glass cockpit configurations. N2189M was here in April 2006, and N3867X was here in November, 2006. I've got pics of both, and will be adding a couple to the article. Akradecki 23:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just detailed the best data and i.d.s I can give for the list of Tepper aircraft, listed in the article.

Mark Sublette 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong on one side but they in fact have 41 747s they have some on order also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparrowman980 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Alan, could you be so kind and look on recent changes in Macchi C.202 article? Personally I think that Egypt Air Force bought some original MC.205Vs and some refurbished and reengined MC.202s, but I may be wrong. --Piotr Mikołajski 18:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have much expertise in this area, but it seems that if a 202 was modded to a 205, then that should be listed in the Variants section as well, and it would be legit to put Egypt as a user. Akradecki 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll add this as separate version and add Egypt as a user. Piotr Mikołajski 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan, and after running my trap lines we have a mystery. First, I asked the last Lockheed SR-71 site manager at Beale AFB ( now retired ) and he answered : "All the J-58 engines were stored there for some time when NASA was flying and we were trying to restore the program but I don't think any of the birds we ever stored there." Next I asked the USAF Colonel, Retired, who was an RSO in the bird at Beale, but became the Program Money Manager after his stint as a crew member. His answer: "I am not aware of any SR assets ever being at Mohave. I didn't get into program til 74 but as the SR-71 PEM at the Pentagon from 80-84 and the Det 6 CC from 84-90 I pretty became aware of all the history before that. I also can't think of any reason why they should have been since we had plenty of storage at Palmdale and Norton. If they were it would have had to have been before the logistics were moved to Norton but the two previous locations were in the Chico area between San Bernardino and LA. Me thinks the "Mojave storage" was probably a cover for a lot of assets we kept at " the Ranch". But if you find out anything different I would be interested." So, there you are: a mystery! Can you email a JPEG of the storage you told me about? If you can, I'll try and find out some more data.

David Dempster 02:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Scuse me for jumping into your discussion, but I have a few thoughts about the SR-71 storage issue.

I was a teen-age air force brat at Norton AFB, San Bernardino, California, living in adjacent Redlands, from 1968-1972. I kept flightline serial notes and inhabited every hangar I could get into. My father was with SAMSO, at that time managing the Minuteman II program, and would tell the security police that I was not a threat.

From my familiarity with Norton, with having seen a published photo of jigsaw puzzle of SR-71s and A-12s shoe-horned into a hangar at Plant 42, Palmdale, where Lockheed once built the L-1011, and the awareness that Norton, an airlift base hosting the 63rd Military Airlift Wing, the Inspector General's office, and the Air Force film library, was placed on the BRAC list in 1995, all makes it very unlikely that any SR-71/A-12 airframes were stored at Norton.

Now, secret Rivet Chain and Rivet Yard C-130s? THEY passed through Norton!

Mark Sublette 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have a question. I have a lot of pictures that I took & of course they're mine. What shell I do to put them in the pages? Is there any special procedure? Thanks Coimbra68 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to re-insert the bolding, I was reverting other changes and put that back in by accident. Quadzilla99 06:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem...I've done the same thing myself...can get quite confusing sometimes! Akradecki 04:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work getting the 2007 Blue Angels South Carolina crash article up today. The mass edits seemed to have died down quite a bit since yesterday. The same thing happened with the NASA page this week with the JSC shooting (and I'm sure with VT also, though I didn't watch the VT pages directly). Anyway, good job, and thanks for helping out last night. When I watch foreign-language DVDs, I can't edit Wiki at the same time :) - BillCJ 20:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2002 Jalandhar India MiG-21 crash, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pioscale.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ysangkok 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC) --Ysangkok 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on watching the Palmdale article. And while I agree that whomever is adding people shouldn't be, notability isn't defined only by having a Wikiarticle; there are plenty of redlinks that will be filled in one day (hopefully soon). I look forward to editing with you again! —ScouterSig 21:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a general sense, I fully agree with you, but typically for lists of names on Wikipedia, inclusion is a result of have notability documented within a wikiarticle. Akradecki 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, could you look at the Chinook helicopter crash page? You have a better grasp of the naming conventions for crash articles, so I'd like your advice on what the appropriate name would be. Feel free to rename it yourself. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done...it's now 1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash. Akradecki 17:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks! You might want to place links to the project pages you mentioned on the crash's talk page, just in case. - BillCJ 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, is there a Boeing military aircraft (incl. helicopters) template? I know we have the airliners, 707/-135, and B-29, but I haven't found one for the other miltary types. If there's not one, I going to try to put one together, while tying not to duplicate the other templates. I'll be quite a job, and I could use any help guidance on it. We might convert the airliner template to include other civil aircraft like the BV107 and BV234. I don't know of any other non-airliner civl aircraft by Boeing, but there may be a few. THanks. - BillCJ 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to work on something at Template:Boeing military aircraft. THanks. - BillCJ 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guinnog, at one point you and Lar were going to start some pre-admin coaching with me...after an extended delay, I'm interested in getting back into it. I've already started discussing this with Lar at User talk:Akradecki/Admin coaching. Are you interested in continuing this? Thanks muchly! Akradecki 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy and honoured to help you in any way I can. --Guinnog 04:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Saw your comment over on the other page, will be quite interested in your guidance there. Akradecki 05:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comments on my talk page, I would be delighted to see Flight 990 at GA and would love to help out with that project; the controversy sorounding the disaster has allways interested me. As for air crash notability guidlines, we badly need them, and they shouldn't be too hard to draw up, either. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's sorted, then - I'll just keep going on the new "Search and Rescue" section, and will likely expand on the reactions and media speculation bits, too (which will include what can be tracked down on the Egyptian gov.s reaction). Some time, I might see what I can do with Gameel Al-Batouti, too. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ping! whats up? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris...thanks for pining back. I have a nav box question, since you use them on your user page. In some articles, the nav boxes at the footer automatically come up in hide mode, while in other articles, they come up in show mode. Your user page has them come up in hide mode as well. I've looked but can't find the switch that defaults to hide or show mode. How do you get them to default to hide, like you your page? I plan on using them in a way similar to how you've done it, as I think it results in a much cleaner-looking user page.

On another note, I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate you coming back. Your wikibreak, despite causing my heart to skip a beat when I saw it, did result in at least one positive thing for me: the prospect of the Project losing you motivated me to get off my duff and resume pre-admin coaching. I'd started it back in December, before Mercy 2 crashed and complicated my life, and I just never got around to picking it back up. Guinnog and Lar have agreed to do the coaching, but if you ever want to throw suggestions/advice in, it would be most welcome.

Many thanks! Akradecki 19:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of what causee them to default either way. To the best of my knowlexge, from what I have seen, it depend son the number of them on the page. If there is 1 only, i am pretty sure it defaults open. If there are multiple they default closed. I am sure you can expirement, poke around and see. You could also probably throw a request in at the technical village pump ( go to WP:VP and click on technical, they could prob help ya! Sorry I cant be of more help, good luck with admin coaching, if you ever need anything feel free to ask! Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; I was going to retrieve that essay for you but you'd need to enable your email first. --Guinnog 19:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that! Hmm, that's odd. I'd changed the email and confirmed it a few days ago. Don't know why it wasn't working. I've changed it back to the old address and reconfirmed. Would you mind trying again? Thanks! Akradecki 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not working, sorry. --Guinnog 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...my bad...for got to check the "Enable e-mail from other users" box on user preferences. One more time? Thanks! Akradecki 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why you created this article when we already have one on P-factor. Both articles say that these are just two names for the same effect. When such is the case, we prefer a single article, with the alternate name redirecting to the primary article name. I've posted merge tags on both articles...please feel free to respond either there or here if there's a compelling reason to have two articles rather than one combined one. Thanks. Akradecki 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the P-factor page to include the alternative name(s). I'm not certain which term is used where, but I've always known the effect as asymmetric blade effect. In any event since the effect was covered (as I subsequently realised) in P-factor it seems worthwhile simply deleting the page on asymmetric blade effect and creating a redirect, while leaving the commont on the p-factor page about the several terms. Furthermore, I try to avoid cliques - I do hope you understand. Cheers. (Weirpwoer 00:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm... A tough question. I guess we should use local times, since that's more meaningful to the context of the article - If you say 1:00 AM local time, people immediatly know it was pitch black when (fill the blank) happened. We should probably convert to UTC in brackets, though i.e. X local time (Y UTC). That way we have what I feel is more descriptive first, with the other supplied to keep people happy. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Akradecki 13:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta run for a while. Will pop in when I can. Watch Helicopter, Svetovid will probably be in there to give the Slovak inventor credit for everything in the whole article. --Born2flie 08:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, could you take a look at Talk:E-3 Sentry? GOt a user who thinks having lots of {{fact tags}} is a "tragedy". Unfortunately, the whole article is unsourced, including some material he added today. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akradecki, I appreciate the effort to save this photograph thumb|right but it is a poor photograph that I had posted earlier. It is out-of-focus and washed-out and best replaced, as I had already indicated to the editor who had listed it for deletion. Bzuk 05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, no problem. I didn't make the connection that it was yours and you were in agreement. Akradecki 03:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I ran into the City of Everett page the other day, and went ahead and put it up for a merge with Museum of Flight. There's a poll on Talk:Museum of Flight, if you want to weigh in. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Akradecki 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I just ran into [1]. I'm not even sure what incident this was supposed to be. Looks like it was deleted b/c it had a prod no one responded to. I guess we need to find these orphaned accident articles, and try to save what needs to be saved. It's also got me curious as to what incident this is, so if you know right off, could you fill me in just a little? Thanks. - BillCJ 06:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it was either vandalism or a hoax...AFAIK, there's not been any 747 crashes, much less a UA one, and even much less one in LA this year! Akradecki 13:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! Was just curious. - BillCJ 14:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, could you take a look at the Erickson Air-Crane page for me? the edits there have been very "interesting" of late, with possible COI from an Erickson employee. I have moved the incedents items to S-64 Skycrane, and will remove (again) the rest soon. I just want to make sure my iron's not getting dull! Thanks! - BillCJ 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good day sir, I had an interesting e-mail from Erickson on my home account when I got home today. I posted it on BillCJ's Discussion page to get some thoughts. Thanks, --Trashbag 01:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought I'd direct this at you seeing as you've been reading the NTSB stuff and are therefore more familiar with it than me (I've never looked at their material on this crash): Do the NTSB documents include, by any chance, an animation of the plane's rapid descent? Or at least a standalone CGI image? Reason I'm asking is, in this case there isn't much wreckage to photograph, and we need something good for the infobox. If not that, then any alternate ideas? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a ton of report attachments, I haven't come across an animation yet, but I'll go look specificially. I have found some images of recovered wreckage, including one of the images. Akradecki 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, couldn't find any animations. I did find one diagram which I've uploaded that shows the flight profile, though. I also just found the Egyptian final report...another 223 pages to read! Akradecki 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well... A good image with an overview of the majority of the recovered stuff should suffice, though. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, when you get a chance, could you take a look at Talk:Agusta A129 Mangusta? I'd like a second opinion on my interpretation of something regarding Turkey's new T129 version. The situation should be expleained well enough there, but if you need more clarification, just ask. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, could you take a look at User talk:BillCJ/Test Article 3#Specs? Jeff has a question regarding the power rating for a civil S-61R, and I thought you might have some ideas. Thanks again, again, again, aga. . . - BillCJ 19:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to revert my so called "refactor other people's comments", you should also revert this, where Signaleer clearly changed other people's comments to fit his agenda. He changed peoples comments in the second section, where the majority supported his position, but not the earlier section, where the majority supported my position. I did not change anyone's words at all, but just combined two sections about the same topic so that other readers could read it all together. Why did you revert my change, but not his? --rogerd 10:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rogerd, the answer is basically because I screwed up. this diff is what I was looking at when I reverted, and my intent was to revert Signaleer's changes. This was a discussion, not a straw poll, and it was inappropriate for him to add the material that he did. Hope that helps. Akradecki 14:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will let you put it where you think it belongs. Do you agree that it makes more sense for the two sections to be combined? --rogerd 14:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have any problem with combining the sections, it was the adding of "support" and "oppose" statements. Akradecki 14:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, User:Davegnz is engaging in vindictive actions towards me for taking a hard line regarding notability and sourcing on an article he has created, Consolidated Liberator I, in my comments at WT:AIR#Liberator B Mk I.

These are the articles affected so far:

1. Bell 222
2. Bell 214
3. Bell 427/429
4. Bell/Agusta 609
5. Sikorsky S-69
6. Sikorsky S-72
7. Schweizer 300
8. Talk:Consolidated Liberator I

I have asked Chris for admin advice and helps. but felt you need to ba aware of his actions to, as you have worked on many of these articles. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, saw that...been reverting his bad-faith noms, and posted a note to his talk page...Akradecki 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted him a link to check out WP:POINT. Good call on them being bad faith noms! Looks like the RFA is going well also. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the help. Yeah, the RfA seems to be going quite well...I'm a bit surprised that there haven't been any additional questions. I'm a little humbled by some of the comments, too! Anyway, I saw your B-24 merge tag and commented. What do you make of all the survivors pages? We're not a directory, and I'm thinking of seeing if the Project would be willing to entertain having some kind of soft limit...documenting survivors when, say, less than 10 have acutally survived. When dozens survive, the notability of the survivors seems to be somewhat diminished. Akradecki 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not an aircraft directory. Survivors should be limited to notable models. Other than that, this project is not here to contain the indiscriminate collection of surviving aircraft, there are other databases that can be obtained from. I saw one the other day and almost nommed it for deletion. This is even a step further than trivia sections. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I mucked you around a bit with that rewrite. I was living in hope that a Georgian-speaking editor - and there are one or two - might have been able to translate what was there before it got AfD'd. Chances are there's a fair bit of useful information which I just couldn't get at, but it's obviously better to have a stub than nothing at all. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'd suggest that the untranslated portion be put on the article's talk page, with a note that some translation is still needed. You never know who might stop by... Akradecki 02:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Why didn't I think of that? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove Pierpoljak from the translation page? Il P@zzo 14:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a redlink. There is no such page on the English Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English is specifically for pages in a foreign language that currently exist on the English wikipedia. What was being asked for is a translation of the page as it currently exists on the French wikipedia. This is not the place to ask for such a translation. If you'll read the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, it says (and the bolding is included in the original), "If the intent is to ask for a translation, the correct place to do that is Wikipedia:Translation." So, the short answer is I removed it because it didn't belong here. Akradecki 15:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, do you think Corwin "Corky" Meyer is notable enoguh to have an article?As a Grumman test pilot, he flew everything from the F4F to the F11F-1F, and his book, Corky Meyer's Flight Journal, is referenced in several aircraft articles. I read a piece by him on his experiences testing the F6F in Wings/Airpower a few years back, and it was a remarkable story. I'm planning on ordering the book soon, and was just looking for information on him, and saw we didn't have an article. What do you think? - BillCJ 18:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! Test pilots are typically notable, and there's Category:Test pilots to put it into. Akradecki 18:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. I'll check around the web and see if I can find a biograph to start things off with. I think he is still alive, so I'll have to read up on the WP:BLP guidelines too. This'll be first attempt at a biography, so it may take me a while. THanks for the suport. I just wanted to be just it would survive an AfDave ;) - BillCJ 18:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might see what I can find on Chuck Sewell also. Found this site on my first serach, has some short biographies. - BillCJ 18:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! AfDave! I love it! Actually, it might not be a bad idea to provide some aviation personality notability criteria somewhere, since it's not a field covered by the existing biographical notability criteria. Akradecki 23:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it made you laugh. - BillCJ 05:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check this out, and weigh in on the AfD page. - BillCJ 05:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Alan, could you look at the comments on User talk:Rlandmann#RFA? If you could reply to me privately with any thoughts or comments you may have, I'd appreciate it much. Thanks. - BillCJ 15:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email... Akradecki 22:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, dear Akradecki! :) And don't mention my comment at yoour RfA, which will surely be successful - a good candidate deserves nothing but good comments! ;) I'll beglad to take care of your request for a suerpage design; be aware, tho that it may take me up to a week to fulfill your request, as I currently have my hands somewhat full. A few pointers would make my task easier, like preferences regarding color, or layout. Anything in mind? Love, Phaedriel - 05:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, thanks for the email. Will definitely look into the coaching.

I am (finally) heading to bed, but some interesting edits are happening in EC-121 Warning Star#Deep Sea 129. I'm not sure want the end result is supposed to be at this point, but if it's what I think it is, it's probably a good candidate for an separate page, assuming it's notable enough. I would appreciate a second opinion, assuming it's done when you get this :) . - BillCJ 08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I made some major edits, including moving the new section to the very-skimpy EC-121 shootdown incident article. - BillCJ 18:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD of the Regno d'Italia... article presents an interesting twist on GFDL matters, I posted a further comment there, but given the likely "slam dunk" outcome of that Afd, the issue which will recur will not receive the thoughtful consideration it is due: A quick recap of my comment is below, but I'd like to get your take on this:

The whole GFDL issue is murky when it comes to intra-WP transfers. We have these "requests for translation", when someone actually does that, how is the GFDL complied with based on the (non-English language) original contents? For example, just perusing through Wikipedia:Translation/*/Completed_Translations/April_2007, I took the first article listed: Jean Fourastié, which has an en:WP history that goes back to April 18, 2007. However, it was translated from the fr:Jean Fourastié, which has a history going back to July 13, 2005; this history has not been imported to the English-language article, yet presumably the GFDL would require some credit be given to the French-language authors whose work was translated to create the English-language article.

Carlossuarez46 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good question. First, looking at it from a true copyright point of view, translations get their own copyrights, so wouldn't the same apply to GFDL? Since the translation is the work of the person translating, I can see where it could be considered a new work and the history would start there. I'll have to look into the "derivative work" concept, and see what is said about that. AKRadecki 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each of our edits is arguably a derivative work of each prior edit (or the collective of all prior edits), so this applies in more than the translation scenario. Carlossuarez46 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I just noticed the posting below. :-) Carlossuarez46 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And good point on the derivative works. AKRadecki 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes and good luck, -- Cecropia 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! --Guinnog 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...thanks! Now the real learning starts! AKRadecki 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Can you block . . . ?  ; - BillCJ 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yes, I think. Are you volunteering for me to expiment back on?? AKRadecki 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me as well... well done. Now what's up with this new loud signature? :) ++Lar: t/c 09:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulation's! You've earned the trust of the Wikipedia community, good work; and, for the future, good luck. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this, you disappear for a while and everyone loses their head!! Congrats, Alan! --Born2flie 11:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it looks, based on the picture on the right, that I also have a new name! Is that one of those secret admin initiation rituals?? AKRadecki 13:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sure! Dfrg.msc 06:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations AKR! NawlinWiki 13:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Nawlin - you've actually been a lot of help. A while back, you gave me some pointers in CSD issues, and I've watched some of your activities and learned a lot from them. Much appreciated! And, if you notice me straying, don't hesitate to knock me upside the head a time or two! AKRadecki 13:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alan, belated congratulations! I somehow missed out on your RFA, but if I'd noticed, I surely would have supported! Good luck with the new tools :) Take care, Riana ⁂ 10:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my mistake on that article. When you do a lot of new page patrolling a row sometimes you put a tag on article that deserves to say. It's kind of a "short article+band member=speedy deletion" reflex.  :) DoomsDay349 22:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it...I've done the same thing myself!! AKRadecki 22:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I've been looking at the Bell 201/207 page, and I don't thnik having the 201 there is the best thing. I'd like to try to steamline it to just cover the 207, and work on adding more info on it. Here's your first request: Could you move the page to Bell 207? As you were the one recommending I put the two models together (I think it was you!), you'd be the only one objecting to taking the 201 back out, so I don't think a poll is necessary here. If you still plan on adding to the 201 info, then I can hold off for while. I'm not as big now on doubling-up articles on the same page as I once was, and I really don't see much growth potential for the 201 material. Anyway, as I always tell Chris when making thse requests, do what you think is best. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• PS, you can experiment on Born2, since he's still off in the real world somwhere ;) - BillCJ 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! The lead probably should be changed, as it sounds like it's about a Bell 47. As for experimenting, I'm sure that it won't be that long until someone comes along who really needs it, either! AKRadecki 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Be sure to check out User:Akradecki and User:BillCJ - they seem to be ganging up against disruptive users all the time, and need to be watched carfully. - BillCJ 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that nefarious gang of airplane groupies...definitely need a block! AKRadecki 00:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn conspiracists! --Born2flie 11:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speak of the devil . . . :) - BillCJ 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late congrats! Congrats on your successful RFA! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you were doing more important stuff! Hope you had fun with the kids! FWIW, as I get used to the system, I'll probably be coming to you for 2nd opinions, as well as for help in matters where I have to recuse myself. AKRadecki 16:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me too. Hopefuly you won't be spending so much time admining that you can't find time for aviation stuff (although something tells me that's kinda unlikely, based on what I've thus far seen of you... ;-). I don't really have much of an excuse for the lateness, though. Just wasn't around at the right time... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I changed my second and third comments on the AfD for Chinese American Food Society from Keep to Comment per your request. Chris 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - The article was approved for keep yesterday. Chris 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made several changes to the page, please check them out to see if they will satisfy the removal of the tags... If you would recomend any other changes please let me know.

Josh Howard May 22nd, 2007

I just took a look, you've done a great job improving the article...tags have been removed. I hope your overall experience on Wikipedia has been a good one, and that you'll stick around and write more! AKRadecki 04:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]