User talk:Nimbus227/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Have a spiffing 2010!

Hi Nimbus, you're about twelve hours behind so Happy 2010 in the next hour or so. Hope you have as creative and successful a time editing as you did last year. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, an hour left of 2009 here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RAF 1 engine

I CANNOT - after looking through a great deal of matter concerning the Avro 504 and the S.E.5 (both very famous types) - find any evidence whatever that any example was ever fitted with an RAF 1. I have added remarks to the discussion page for the RAF 1 you might peruse and let me know what you think. I feel that your source must be mistaken, and that in this instance we need to apply common sense and look for corroborating evidence. As I say, I have searched without finding any - but there may be something out there, at least for the Avro. Fitting an RAF 1 to an S.E.5 actually borders on the impossible. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Noting that you are refuting Mr Lumsden's work and hopefully not mine I will try to help you. The format of his book is engines by manufacturer then type with applications. As a cross reference there is an additional list in Chapter 3, 40 pages of two column engine applications by aircraft type, if he has got it wrong then he has got it wrong twice. I will list the two disputed aircraft here and their engines and you can decide how accurate he is.

• Avro 504

Clerget 7Z 80 hp

Gnome Monosoupape 7 Type A 75 hp

• Avro 504A

ABC 100 hp

• Avro 504 E, J, K, M

Gnome Monosoupape 9B 100 hp

• Avro 504F

Rolls-Royce Hawk 1 85 hp

• Avro 504K

ABC Wasp

Armstrong Siddeley Lynx I

Bentley BR.1

Clerget 9B

Green E6

Hispano-Suiza 8Bc

Le Rhone 9J

RAF 1a 90 hp

• Avro 504N

Armstrong Siddeley Lynx II, III, IV and IVC)

Armstrong Siddeley Mongoose IIIA

Bristol Lucifer

Bristol Titan

• Avro 504O

Armstrong Siddeley Mongoose

• Avro 504Q

Armstrong Siddeley Lynx II

• Avro 504R Gosport

Armstrong Siddeley Mongoose I

Avro Alpha 90 hp

Gnome Monosoupape 9B-2 100 hp

• Avro 504 A,B,C,D,G,H

Gnome 7 Lambda 80 hp

• Avro 504 A,B,J

Le Rhone 9C

Missing from this list is the Wolseley Viper, a photo of an Avro 504K fitted with this engine appears on page 232, unsurprisingly it looks the same as the front of an S.E.5, apparently it was not a 'physical impossibility' to fit a V8 to a '504'.

• R.A.F. S.E.5

RAF 1a 90 hp

• R.A.F. S.E.5A

ADC Airdisco 120 hp

Hispano-Suiza 8Ba 200 hp

Hispano-Suiza 8Fb 300 hp

Renault WS 80 hp

• R.A.F. S.E.5 and S.E.5a

Wolseley Adder I, II and III (200 hp)

Hispano-Suiza 8Aa 150 hp

Hispano-Suiza 8Bc 220 hp

Hispano-Suiza 8Be 220 hp

Sunbeam Arab I and II (200 hp)

Wolseley Python I 150 hp

Wolseley Python II 180 hp

Wolseley Viper 200 hp

80 horsepower may not be ideal but could easily power a small biplane like the S.E.5 (replicas often use Continental C-90s), the extra power from the ever larger engines used would have been needed for climb performance and speed. As far as I know we don't have a policy of removing information cited by reliable sources, even if we don't believe it. You are probably aware of this policy but please read the first line of the first paragraph at least. You could contact Mr Lumsden possibly through the publishers (Crowood.com) to ask what his sources were and question him directly. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being dogmatically cynical here, I am NOT "refuting" anyone and I'm perfectly prepared to admit I'm wrong if we can only find some corroboration - in fact I have done very little else for the last 24 hours but attempt to locate some. Neither application (for instance) is mentioned in the articles for either aircraft type - nor, and I have gone though everything I can locate on both types including hundreds of pages of text, can I find the slightest hint that the RAF 1 or 1A was ever fitted to either type. These engines WERE of course very cheap indeed after the war - as many of the surviving examples of the DH.6 and B.E.2e types were written off completely as un-airworthy due to airframe deterioration, and yet had salvageable engines. It is hence conceivable that postwar, privately purchased war surplus aircraft were fitted with RAF 1's (or the very similar Renault air-cooled V8s) for which they were not designed. In fact only a small proportion of aircraft offered for sale were purchased, and of these a comparatively small proportion seem to have ever been officially registered. Even fewer early registrations were ever renewed.

Without wishing to "reject" reputable sources, quite good sources on the subject of WWI aircraft do contradict each other quite a lot, and some do provide information that seems to be both highly unlikely, and uncorroborated by other equally good sources. In preparing an encyclopedia article - arguably it is better to omit information that is palpably inconsistent with the bulk of what we have, even if we perhaps "lose" a relatively unimportant fact. To put it another way, we need to use a measure of common sense, or our articles will among other things be contradictory.

That the odd single aircraft might have been fitted with the odd unlikely powerplant is less important, surely, than listing engines actually used in known experimental types, or (even more to the point) mounted in standard production types that saw squadron service? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look at the policy page you suggested. Perhaps the redflag policy may be appropriate. The red flag here is a pair of surprising claims not covered by any other source. I do not (I repeat) wish to refute this source, but just question the likelihood of its being correct in this particular instance - given that no other source mentions the surprising fact concerned. I also doubt its notability - given that the fitting of the powerplants concerned are likely (assuming they occurred at all) to have been restricted to the odd example - and that it would be more encyclopedic (not to mention helpful) to concentrate on installations of this particular powerplant that are either known to have been connected with research or testing, or, of course, the completion of production examples of the type concerned. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a ping on the Lockheed 12 renaming...

We had been discussing it on Template talk:Lockheed, but that discussion seems to have stalled. I tried pinging it to get your attention, but I guess you've been busy with the new engine categories. I just want to make sure this doesn't fall between the cracks, since I know some people aren't very happy with the new current name, and I'm doubtful about it myself. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Colin, sorry, I'm working at the moment. Have no opinion really either way on the matter, you just have to do what's best IAW the guidelines. If they were British aircraft I could help more (would have a 'feel' for what the most common names were). Silence is taken as consent. If you have done all you can to discuss a proposal, which I think you have, then strictly no one can complain if you change something. Check in with BilC if you have not already, he can probably help more than me. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Lockheed Model 9 Orion edits

Hello, Why was my lockeed orion 9d addition edited out? I am the originator of 90% of the text in this artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjes100 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Describing points of view. We don't generally make personal comparisons in articles, we present cited facts (which you did not in that case) and let the reader decide. You included a bare external link (unformatted) which could have been used as a cite. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for standard methods of citing. Claiming that you have written 90% of the article (which you may well have done) does not unfortunately give you any ownership rights over the text. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, its not my artical. That was not what I said. I am sorry you inferred that. My comment was only to validate that I am not some random, one time edit guy, making changes to an artical I know little about. Please tell me how I can discuss this so as to be a valid and useful contributer. It has been awhile since I did a wiki edit and much has changed. I hope the general public can still effect the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjes100 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps analyse a similar article to see how it is written generally (level of detail etc.) and also put the page into 'edit mode' and look at the cite coding, even copying and pasting it but changing the actual reference. You instantly reverted my reversion with a slightly sarcastic edit summary [1] which looks like the classic start of an edit war to me. You will be glad to know that I will not be taking part in it. There are some very, very experienced aircraft editors in the project and I like to think that I'm getting up there with them, if I get reverted there is usually a good reason for it and I take it in good faith. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarcastic, edit wars? I was only trying to give an explanation as to why I made the addition. I am only trying to add good content to an artical. It appears you are very sensitive and take quick offence. Like I said, I have not added to this wikipedia article in some time. Im just a person (general public) trying to add content. Thanks for your advice. It appears that someone did help me by doing the formatting, which is something I have not been able to do properly. The wikipedia instructions are difficult to navigate and understand. Thanks for your patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.211.116 (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. We do have to be careful with edit summaries, meanings can be misunderstood across the void of the internet, I keep them short and rarely let my true feelings show. "For people (like me) who are really interested in this aircraft" implies, to me at least, that you felt that no one is interested or cares for the article where exactly the opposite is true, apart from committed vandals of course. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here...Ronjes1000, just for your general information I might suggest that you look over Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, which has guidelines and other material related to editing aircraft-related articles. There is also general discussion related to the project on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft; it might be helpful to look over the archives of that to get a sense of the general issues that editors deal with. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Pilot Transition" R-R Griffon

Hi Nimbus, I'm wondering whether this section should be cut out and pasted into a more relevant Spitfire article - as it is it is becoming an analysis of the Spitfire rather than being strictly about the engine. Thoughts? cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like someone has very recently added excessive detail to this section, also hijacking a Lumsden and Price cite in the process. Was ok as it was originally as it was a noted problem/difference. What may need adjusting is the section header, something like 'Introduction into service' or 'Spitfire use' or something similar, i.e. a header that justifies the sections' existence. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Contest

Hi Nimbus227! This note is to inform you that your Aviation Contest submissions page has been archived from the previous round! You are now free to add submissions for this round! Note: This next round will run from January through February, so feel free to update your submission page with work from both months! Thanks, and happy editing! (Note: I will not be watching this space. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Contest discussion page. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Take Off magazine

An article that you have been involved in editing, Take Off magazine, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Off magazine. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Ahunt (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

Hello, Nimbus227. You have new messages at Rlandmann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

British Airways Flight 38

With the publishing of the AAIB final report into British Airways Flight 38, the article can now be said to be in a "finished" state. How close is it to GA status, and what areӂ the realistic prospects of a FA? Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Afraid I have not looked at it closely or read the report in detail, perhaps put the article up for peer review. I can see some embedded links/citations that should be fixed (registration in the infobox and the AAIB quotes). I think for FA it would need more detailed content (that could be taken from the report). Was the fuel checked properly for water in China? Why didn't the FSII (Fuel System Icing Inhibitor) additive work? Questions that I would ask. There is a header of 'Disruption' which can be taken as 'disruption of the structure', maybe 'Air traffic disruption' would be clearer and another header has extra capital letters (Awards and Aftermath). Some of the text is in future tense where, as you say, the investigation seems to be complete. It's pretty good, just needs polishing and they are virtually insisting on a prior peer review now at FAC as I watch the talk page. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can answer the FSII question, it isn't used in commercial civil aircraft in the UK, apart from some business jets. Mjroots (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I read that afterwards, maybe they should think about it!!! It's used in F-40 even though most (or all) of the military jets have some kind of fuel warming system (often used to cool hydraulic fluid). The FSII makes your skin sting and come up red if you get drowned in Avtur (which I did a couple of times!). Probably comes down to expense/practicality. A friend is a BA 777 captain and also a glider pilot which comes in handy at times! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Template Barnstar
		For simply patient and splendid work in creating Template:Aircraft gas turbine engine components and Template:Aircraft piston engine components - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, God bless all who sail in them!! That must be about it for templates I would have thought (he says nervously)?!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well 'credit where due' and you did a lot of work on those two! - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

ESM Wiki

It is indeed :) Hope it was of some help or interest :) Now just to work out how to balance my contributions in both places! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Renault 70hp article

Sir,

Your article describes this engine as a V8, yet the accompanying photo appears to be a Renault V12.

With Kind Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.197.222 (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are quite correct!! Good spot! The article is correct but the photo is of a different Renault engine. I can't find it on the RAF Museum website but I did take a photo of the museum description plate which describes it as just a 'Renault' that produces up to 130 horsepower and is intended for their Farman F.141 restoration. According to my reference on British Renault engines only one V-12 is mentioned, the 12Fe of 220 hp. Don't know why I was convinced this engine was the 70 hp. I will remove the photo and amend the description on commons then try to find out what it actually is. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Merlin boost pressures

Hi Nimbus, there is a problem with boost pressure conversions in the article; for example +6 lbs/sq in is converted to 41 kPa (6lbs/sq in), yet is translated as 1.45 atm (or 20.5 lbs boost [14.5 + 6]); the editor who recently added the kPa units has not done the maths properly. And is kPa required or do we add all possible conversions? The same editor has added this (41 kPa gauge; or an absolute pressure of 144 kPa or 1.41 atm) to the variants section, which makes no sense to the general reader. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed the recent unit 'corrections' and additions including MOS breaches, quite disheartening. I'm sure they were correct at the time of the FAC, also concerned that the units are being changed from those given in the cited sources. Have to wait for it to blow over then recheck the article unfortunately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it looks as though this guy is on some sort of a mission - he has just "corrected" the article on Spitfire performance; as a bonus he has added new formulae...(*sigh*) Agreed that boost pressure is not lbs/sq ft. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

FA Tips?

Hey Nimbus, I think I'm going to try and take the CFM International CFM56 article up for FA soon. I'm adding and tweaking some stuff before I do so, but do you have any tips, things I should look out for, etc., to ease the process? Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you need lots of patience!!! So many little things really that all add up, copyediting, compliance with MOS, referencing, alt text and validity of image sources and the magic ingredient that is the hardest, making it an interesting read. Good luck. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Another question... how does an FAC end? Right now I'm at 4 supports and 4 comments, and I believe most of the issues in the comments are addressed (or aren't deal breakers). Do I need to recruit more reviewers? Or do I just wait it out until an admin/facilitator comes by and looks at it? -SidewinderX (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look in the big blue box at the top of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates it describes the process (although I admit that some of it is slightly mysterious). One of three people casts an eye over the review once the reviewers seem to have stopped adding anything, the timing is open-ended. I saw an article get promoted quite quickly the other day as it had overwhelming support and very little to fault it. Some reviews get archived (code for 'not promoted') if there is a lack of reviewers (not the case with the CFM56). There are no opposes which has to be a good sign. The article is at the top of the 'older nominations' pile on the FAC page (linked earlier) so is getting into the zone where the FAC team will look at it for the thumbs up or down. Just a matter of sitting patiently for now. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the sanitised version for those of a nervous disposition - in reality it boils down to how sadistic the reviewers are feeling and what sort of a day the deciding judge has had! Cynical? Me? No, I have the utmost faith and admiration for all those involved in the torture ordeal process, knowing how consistent and fair they are at all times, particularly with regard to citing format issues. ;p --Red Sunset 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that seaweed is involved in the process somewhere! We have to have faith in the system and can only do our best. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. Just me cocking a snoot - not being serious - but patience is key! :) --Red Sunset 05:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a snook isn't it? Not that anyone knows what a snook is!!!! All good fun anyway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Particularly me! I'm a just a yank so you need to break down that fancy words for me! :p -SidewinderX (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected – it is "snook" – a gesture with the thumb on the nose and the fingers spread out, used to poke fun at someone in a non-malicious manner. There are many weird and wonderful words and sayings in the English language – I don't think anyone knows and understands them all! --Red Sunset 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked into it (as I would!!) and a snook is a fish but it's not related to the phrase apparently which nobody seems to know where it came from. My dad used to say 'sling your hook', meaning get lost or get out of here but I don't know where that came from either, sounds naval! The wonderful world of words. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too in the OED. So, what did you do to upset your dad then (LoL)? Mine used to say "take a running jump" for a similar result – that comes from the good old days when hanging was a common form of execution and a running jump would result in a broken neck, thereby preventing a slow lingering death, i.e. a quick way out! Don't we have a great legacy of sayings. :) --Red Sunset 09:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Numerous things (to upset my dad), one I remember was taking an alarm clock apart and asking him to put it back together! I was close with the naval theme, one theory for it is to 'weigh anchor and go'. Why would you want to weigh an anchor anyway?!! Too much 'Countdown' but it's not the same with Carol and Des gone. I noted a message from Sandy in the CFM FAC, she is right. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

WP Motorcycling in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Motorcycling for a Signpost article to be published April 12. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Custer Channel Wing

Hi Nimbus!!

Thank you for kindly offering to archive some of my talk page. Yes please - but could you leave the links to the Aircraft and Manufacturers creation page handy for future use? I do not have the IT skill to have done this myself.

Have read your 'home page'. You certainly helped keep some classic RAF types in the air .. Lightning, Phantom, Buccaneer. Pity none now fly in the UK, but given the Lightning crash in South Africa recently, perhaps the CAA are right in their policy to some degree. Only the RAF/FAA could safely support such operations, with the probable exception of the Vulcan to the Sky people - but they are finding funding to be a perennial problem ...

Am envious of you having a share in a Tiger Moth. I've been a couple of times to the DH Moth gathering at Halton, with an even more elderly friend. Has your Tiger been there? I had an aerobatic flight in a Morris Cowley-built Tiger in New Zealand in the early 1990's - my first 'inverted' flight ever. Have flown in two-seat gliders, but not a Nimbus! Ruth RuthAS (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - forgot to answer your question re the rubble-strewn WW2 hangar containing the CCW-5 (and a Fairchild C-119). The CCW was not on display when I visited the main museum complex, so I enquired where the unique aircraft was, and they eventually took me over to this closed hangar in a battered van. Twas worth being a bit 'cheeky' as I will not get the chance again ... Ruth RuthAS (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the CCW-5 had been stored in that old hangar during the winter, as I saw it in late April. Its tires (sic) had gone flat and the birds had left their well aimed strike marks on the aircraft. I believe that they spruce it up for summer display. I'd heard of the FAAM reserve collection being open on 25 April, so will go with a younger friend. She's becoming quite interested in aviation history and we'll stay overnight fairly close by after visiting the Helicopter Museum at Weston on the Saturday, plus ordinary sightseeing at Glastonbury etc. Was at Halton in 2008, so will have seen your Tiger in the formation of nine. RuthAS (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki in German templates

Hello Nimbus, thank you for your great idea - but please stop, this does not work! Interwikis in such templates will link the main article to the :en wiki Best regards --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok! How can we make it work? Wiki de seems to handle the templates differently? Gruss. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I went back and looked at my edits and can not quite understand the problem, seems to be working fine? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I see it now, if you click on another language link in an English article it takes you to the company navbox template and not the article, very strange!! I have undone my edits on wiki en. Must be a way around this problem? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I left you a note here explaining how to make interwiki links which are only visible on the template's page. TDL (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft Images

Nimbus : Milborne One, a senior contributor, has previously said that the preference for heading photos was for a contemporary shot of an aircraft in (then) current operational service. Not a museum piece. Historic relevance and interest should outweigh sheer technical quality of current (but non-representative) shots of preserved aircraft. I've had no similar 'feedback' from others. I've taken trouble to scan at high resolution and to photoshop RuthAS (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Ruth. Well, that may be his personal preference but it is not what is contained in the aircraft article image guidelines (which have been arrived at over many years through project consensus). If we look at the Avro Lancaster, Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire (three high profile and popular aircraft articles) they all contain good quality, colour, in-flight images in the infobox. They are of 'museum pieces' as you note but I believe the quality of the images outweighs any extra value from available period photographs (that are often of lower resolution). Period images are used in all three articles so they are not being excluded, indeed they add encyclopedic value. Having successfully nominated two aviation related Featured Articles I note that during the reviews the images were closely scrutinised by others, making sure that only the best were being used. The question is often asked at FA review "why are you using image a when image b is much better". There is more general guidance on images at Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement. We will have to agree to disagree, if you want to change the guidelines then you could discuss it at WT:AIR or WT:AIR/PC. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Levee

A levee is what you drive your Chevy to!

Don't mean to seem like a stalker, but I saw your edit summary and couldn't resist! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you wikilink it?! Hence my question. That's a long song BTW, never remember the words! Stalk away, no worries. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, but I did - levee heehee - Ahunt (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I can wikilink it, if you don't do it, after you're done with your edits. BTW, give The Saga Begins a shot too if you're a Star Wars fan. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I was being cheeky (I knew what it was) but making a point as we don't have levees in England, could have linked it myself but I was ploughing through the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Swift name shuffle!

Thanks for fixing my really obvious copy error in George Bayard Hynes, goes away thinking I must read preview before saving! MilborneOne (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We all do it!! No worries. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft flight control system

Hello Nimbus,
You may want to check the Aircraft flight control system article as an IP editor has made a lot of changes without edit summaries. I AGF but the same editor introduced an error, that I (my POV)regard as a serious factual error, to Space Shuttle orbiter. They also seemed to ignore my messages on their talk page. Annoying! Just FYI. Tally Ho! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is fast becoming an unreferenced mess and those edits were not entirely helpful, will bring it to the attention of the aircraft project. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help! Sonno Joi! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

BEA 548

I've changed something in the lede, and added a ref. I note from the FACR that you've cleared other refs from the lede, so you may want to repeat that info further down the article and ref it there. Also, see my comments on the talk page re referencing system I used. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I used Job's book to ref the callsign (not in report of public enquiry). Please see my comments at FACR re referencing generally. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've let the Wikiproject know that the article is at FAC again and requested some input. I hope they don't give you too hard a time. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't canvass at WP:AVIATION as it got ignored last time and there were comments recently at another aviation-related FAC about independent reviews (i.e. no aviation editors reviewing aviation FACs). It's not a rule but I understand the principle, if non-aviation minded readers and editors understand it so much the better. We'll see what happens this time round. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a photo here which I think we should be able to use under FUR, what do you think? Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that before, unfortunately it is not credited to anyone, no photographer, no date etc. so unable to complete a fair use rationale template. You can sometimes get away with it in a lower rated, low profile article but it would be binned at FAC instantly (it happened in another FAC that I nominated and I was convinced that the rationale template looked all in order). There is a better black and white view of the scene from an aircraft, this one. I have it in a reasonable resolution in a book (which could be scanned) but the only attribution is to Middlesex County Press. I know that someone uploaded the same image some time ago (18 months?) and it was deleted. It is frustrating because a picture paints a thousand words. Cheers anyway, maybe something will become available. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just thought of a possible avenue. A senior editor from Flight International posted in the aviation project (a year ago?) and indicated that he would make all the archives of Flight (before a certain date) public domain. The offer seemed not to be taken up, just wondering if there was any more on this, I can't remember the exact details of the conversation. I have used non-free images from Flight for aircraft and engines and they have not been questioned. Problem with the Flight archive is that you can search for text but not images (although they often appear near the related text), there is a lot on Papa India but if I remember the images were poor quality (showing dot matrix) and I don't remember finding an image of the crash site, perhaps I'll have another search. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the Hansard source. Hezza got quite a grilling in the House. Is it worth mentioning in the article? Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No I haven't yet as I've got my hands full with the FAC review and trying to implement many suggestions (carefully). I did see the add though and will read it when I get a chance. The current reviewer is commenting on the level of detail (too much) and I haven't got round to replying to that yet. I need to look at the apparent NPOV areas as they are probably more important. This has all come at a very bad time for me as I am very busy with something in RL but as long as I can stay awake I will keep at it!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats - me too. - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Jaffa cakes all round then! I did notice this 'promotion' and visited the guideline briefly, will be interesting to see how it works in practice. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am waiting to see the practical upshot myself! - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology and olive branch

Gary, I apologize for for my behavior and actions regarding the Rolls-Royce template. While I did try to do what I thought was right, I did say things that escalated rather than diffused the conflict. At this point, could we agree to diagree? As long as we're the only two editors involved, the status quo won't change if neither of us gives in. I'm open to suggestions and options, as past disagreements are no indication that a compromise can't be reached in the future. If there were a way to keep both template styles, that would be the best solution, but short of using two templates, I don't know how that could be acomplished! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bill, I was thinking the same myself (olive branches) not an hour ago. You did rather insult me and I was on the verge of giving up Wikipedia for the second time but I have ridden through it, I think you had me confused with one of your Chinese jet fighter 'fanboys' for a moment! Also by coincidence I am working on two Rolls-Royce navboxes (check my recent contribs) which will split the two distinct and quite different era companies (and make them more useful when 'see also' links and piston engine letter designations have been added). I intended to discuss these fully at WT:AETF and the template pages before implementation but if you have no objections I will go ahead. The RR PLC and RR Corporation template will keep the same name as it currently has, the new template will be named Template:Rolls-Royce Limited aeroengines. I use WP:NAVBOX as a guide. All I can say is that I always put an awful lot of thought into my voluntary work on Wikipedia and have absolutely no desire to take over the planet!. Apology accepted. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting my apology. I'm not making excuses, but I was a bit wound up emotionally because of my health issues. (Nothing life-threatening, but it has emotional side-effects - oh what fun!) As I mentioned before, most people see Rolls-Royce as one continuous company (and legal identity aside, it really is), and I think we need a navbox which presents it that way. Is there away we can get away with using both templates? - BilCat (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if I was in hospital (hypothetically) and on my back (probably through another motorcyling accident) my laptop would not be far away to pass the time by editing Wikipedia! But ... I would have to make sure that I was in the right frame of mind to edit. I could give more advice here but we are both grown up so if you want to fight with people all the time then carry on!! Your objection point(s) as I see them is that you want to group all RR engines by type where I wish to group them by company and type (in accordance with the guideline of 'related articles'). Rolls-Royce Limited ceased to exist in 1971, it is just total logic to me that engines developed before this time are grouped together, it still spans an almost 60 year period. The designers in the current navbox only relate to this earlier period. From WP:NAVBOX: The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B? There are other British engine companies in this situation: Template:Bristol aeroengines is an example. As I mentioned 'see also' links would be added to other related templates. There is an Allison template which is a partial duplication of the current RR navbox but I think it should stay as again it was a distinct company. I have very black and white views on navboxes, they are an area where original research can creep in, the guidelines are quite general, nobody has noticed this yet. The name Rolls-Royce to me conjures up clever individuals who invented motor cars and aero engines in long forgotten times, the current multi-million pound global company is a world apart. Readers my age or older would agree.

I will ask my 20 year old daughters though what the name Rolls-Royce means to them as an experiment. To finish, I am not a 'fanboy' of Rolls-Royce products although I can't fault the reliability, the Rolls-Royce Limited article is in a terrible state and does not do the company justice (or tell us much about its history). Can't fix it all overnight unfortunately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't in the hospital, but I have had an illness for 8 years now, If I waited until I was completely better, I'd have never come on WP in the dirst place. It's a lonely life, as I am pratically house-bound, and WP is my window to the world in a real sense. Thanks for understanding and for the advice.

I do understand your position on Rolls-Royce, but I disagree. There is a continuous history of engine development by a specific set of people and facilities, and while the company has grown over the years, it's all still Rolls-Royce (the aero-engine side, anyway.) Whichever way we do it, there is going to be duplication, as RR had several engines in production or development during 1971, notably the RB.211. It's not unusual for one WPAIR navboxes, both for aircraft or engine companies, to have 2 or 3 companies on the same navbox. In the case of merged companies, it's really a matter of preference as to how it is done. Template:Bristol aeroengines covers both Bristol Aeroplane Company and Bristol Siddeley, and althugh it is separated by company, it also seems to divide neatly by pistons and jets/rockets. The bulk of the Allison engines rightly belong on their own page, as, for the most part, there was no connection between it and RR, the TF41 aside. Also, what do we do with the model numbers list? TH "RB" series spans both companies, and would be difficult to divide at all. I do agree that the template is quite large, and could be made smaller. That's why I think splitting off the pistons might work, as the group is large enough to fill out a template, and the most of the designers would go with them. A see also link to each article would be mad on the other one. we do have other companies that have 2 or more navboxes, such as Boeing with a civil and a military, though we have rationalized some of them. Boeing initially had 2 military navboxes, combat and support, but the advet of the sub-groups and font changes helped us get them all into one. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The template has grown to a size where it needs splitting, that's clear. Splitting off just the piston engines only removes about 1/6th of it, the navbox wants to be chopped in half ideally. The 'see also' links I mentioned would be links to the other related navbox templates, not to individual engine articles. I am trying to find a navbox that has these links to copy into the sandbox but I can't find one at the moment. Where there is overlap with RB numbers (and names) between companies then it would make sense to me to include them under the original developing company. We currently categorise engines by type and first run decade, although many of them were produced for several decades, it's just a logical way of sorting something that initially looks confusing. When sorted by company there only appears to be three articles with RB numbers related to RR PLC (new designs not started by RR Ltd), there are RB numbers from old RR Ltd engines that are higher than the current ones which is a mystery. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree. I think splitting by company is counter-intuitive, as one has to know the history beforehand to find an engine, whereas it's fairly simple to go by piston or jet - most users should be able to tell the difference, even those educated in US government schools! :) With the BS and Allison engines, if RR produced them, they're listed, but are still on the earlier company's page. We need some outside input, but to now no one else seems interested. ANy idea how to get some? - BilCat (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I realize that splitting off the pistons isn't splitting off mych, but I'd rather not split it at all. I know it's a long template, but RR is a company with a long list of designs. I'd still preger keeping it all on one template by type - I think that serves the user in the best way. Showing the history is an admirable pursuit, but it doesn't work in this case. - BilCat (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that I am noting that we should take noe of the fact that the root of our dispute is a difference in philosophy of how to best present the information. It's not personal, and it shouldn't be. We simply have different ideas about how the navboxes should be used. How do we reconcile the difference, and still be true to our "philosophies"? - BilCat (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad you guys are talking again, I can see good points of view in both camps and the current ttemplate is a bit large. Can I make some suggestions, remove some of the breaks like after Two-stroke piston engines and Crecy which might reduce the real estate taken up. Another thought perhaps is the Joint Development bit takes up a lot of room perhaps that could be spun off to a sister template and just leave the designations in whichever section of the template they fit. Just some ideas to find a way forward apology for the interrupt. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Michael. I've been wondering waht to do with the "Joint Development" section myself, as it has 10 entries. A separate template for the details is a good ide, and I assume it would only be used on the 10 article listed, and that the main RR template would not be used on those pages. - BilCat (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've worked on my type-first navbox at User:BilCat/Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines Shorter. Yhe Joint Develepment templateis at User:BilCat/Template:Rolls-Royce JD aeroengines, but still needs wqork. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

New Template

Hi, I noticed you use {{FA user topicon}} and wanted to let you know that {{DYK user topicon}} has recently been created, so that you can showcase your DYK credits in your topicon space as well. It works exactly the same way as {{FA user topicon}} Happy editing! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)