User talk:Petebutt

This user may have left Wikipedia. Petebutt has not edited Wikipedia since 22 December 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

:

My userboxes This user is a WikiDragon. ...one of the last of a dying breed... This editor is a WikiGnome. This user has been on Wikipedia for 15 years, 7 months and 26 days. en This user is a native speaker of the English language. This user is a participant in WikiProject Aviation. This user is a participant in WikiProject Aircraft. This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox. This user is a WikiFairy. This user contributes to Wikimedia Commons. This user served with the Royal Air Force. This pilot flies gliders This user is a member of WikiProject Wiltshire. This user is a participant in WikiProject Thailand. This user is a participant in Wikiproject Oman. This user is a member of the WikiProject Aircraft - Engine Task Force. @ This user can be reached by email. This user uses Google as a primary search engine. This user is a member of WikiProject Military history. This user is a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. This user is a participant in WikiProject Disambiguation.

Aviation WikiProject Articles for review

Peer review Granville Gee Bee Model A 2013 Eberswalde-Finow Zlin crash Fresno Yosemite International Airport This box: view talk edit

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

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

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded for your mind boggling dedication, workload and sheer application in creating and editing several lengthy and detailed tables, especially those relating to lists of RAF stations and ROC Monitoring posts. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 15:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Wikiwings
		Just to recognise some of your work in the background on aircraft article assesment and lists. MilborneOne (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk:Petebutt/Archive 1
• User talk:Petebutt/Archive 2
• User talk:Petebutt/Archive 3
• User talk:Petebutt/Archive 4

Your edit to Eurofighter Typhoon https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&oldid=907308787 removed the relevant afterburning thrust specification, and only left the less relevant dry thrust. Do not make edits which remove relevant information. --Hkultala (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stick it up your ar.. Don't be so judgemental, it was obviously an oversight and not a deliberate omission.--Petebutt (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE: You recent addition here, where you added Janoir, you only provided a ref name of "Davilla" and not a full citation, and it was causing a cite error in the references section, as was mis-spelled "name", anyway I took a wild guess and figured it was James Davilla's book, French Aircraft of the First World War, Flying Machines Press (2002) and added that, but I don't know the page number. If I was right, could you add the page number or if I was wrong, please feel free to add the right citation. Thanks for your contributions. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where the reference is in alphabetical order i don't give page numbers to avoid filling the page with un-necessary repeats of essentially the same reference. Anybody that can't access a book alphabetically would very probably not be looking at a reference in the first place.--Petebutt (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note edits by yourself yesterday to two Walter engine articles, although you added content with a new reference at the same time you changed the existing citation style to your own preferred style which is against the editing guideline WP:CITEVAR. This has been noted before by myself and other editors, please stop. For your benefit I have pasted the relevant parts of the guideline here to save you clicking the shortcut link. The bolding is mine.

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article.

If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data. The data provided should be sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate it without retrieving it.

To be avoided[edit]

When an article is already consistent, avoid:

• switching between major citation styles, e.g. parenthetical and <ref> tags, or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's;
• adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently;
• changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist.

I'm afraid the next time this happens an ANI report will be raised, to avoid that happening I politely ask that the guideline is respected. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I do, usually where there are more than one style already, or bare URl refs. Apart from that, the concensus MUST be to use the wizard that is provided with EVERY edit page, or it wouldn't be there!!. If you don't like that style start a discussion to get it removed!!--Petebutt (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In these two articles there was clearly only one style of citation and no bare URLs so even by your own standard the style should not have been changed. What is this wizard that we are forced to use? Can you provide a link? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I shall not change overall style, but I will continue to only use the supplied templates for all refs I add, then any editor that objects can change it to the prevailing style. In the toolbar select Cite and a Template drop down appears where you can select the template you want, from web, book, news or journal.--Petebutt (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you will continue to ignore the guideline? I don't see the compulsory citation template markup code on an editing page, it is probably an optional editing gadget selected in 'Preferences'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say it was compulsory! but it is a standardised system supplied by wikipedia on every edit window, so I will continue to use it!--Petebutt (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said above 'MUST be to use...' with emphasis on 'must' using capital letters, sounds compulsory to me. It can't be a standardised system if it is a user selected optional gadget. In the guideline text above it clearly states that there is no mandated (compulsory) citation style across the project and equally clearly states that whatever style is established should be followed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to enjoy taking things out of context. The implication is that Wikipedia supply the template so use it!!, Not compulsory but obviously recommended.--Petebutt (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just repeating your opinion typed in black and white. There is no implication of anything, here's the first line of Wikipedia:Citation templates, Citation templates are used to format citations in a consistent way, as an alternative to formatting the citations by hand. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. My bolding again, the rest of that paragraph is worth reading. At least we've established that you have little regard for editing guidelines which is perplexing in a collaborative project. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you used a cite template here accidentally? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks i missed that!--Petebutt (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might have corrected yourself but that's not why I'm here. You have introduced a citation template where there were none before. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about the removal of an image you added to 1978 Finnish Air Force DC-3 crash is on going here. - Samf4u (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. This is regarding your "loony lefty" and "idiot" commentaries in the discussion above. If you can't make your point without insulting other editors, you will be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying, but the editor in question WAS both an idiot and a loony lefty. I shall bite my tongue in future!--Petebutt (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When do except to have this new article completed? - BilCat (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No timescale yet. Need more sources. The engine is based on the Palouste/Artouste with a single shaft and free-power turbine driving a gas producer compressor. Not 100% sure of its relation to the Turmo III and later turboshafts ( which are two-shaft engines),--Petebutt (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Founad another source - done--Petebutt (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Just a friendly reminder, make sure you preview your edits... You dumped a couple of pages into Category:Convert errors. I've made MORE than my fair share of mistakes so not pointing fingers, just a friendly reminder. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the existing reference format per WP:CITEVAR when changing specifications templates - and please do not replace a precise citation referring to an individual page to one to a larger page range without a good reason.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I do get carried away. However I generally ensure that my references comply with the required APA style. To do this I use the templates provided which give a consistent output. On other occasions the reference given is NOT broad enough, particularly in Specification sections, requiring that the whole sectio n of text on the subject is cited. If you feel I have gone too far feel free to discuss it, bearing in mind that WP:CITEVAR encourages improvement of citations and reference!!--Petebutt (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As people keep on telling you, the use of templates is not required, and CITEVAR explicitly says that. The APA style is not required, as you should know from all the discussions above - in addition, you appear to be changing away from the perfectly permissible Harvard (or short style) references as widely used. That is against the spirit of CITVAR and does not represent an improvement to the article or the referencing.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that use of the templates is required!!! I use them as it is easy and gives a consistent output which satisfies the requirement to use APA, no more, no less.--Petebutt (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to use APA. What you are doing is making the referencing less consistent and less precise. Please make the effort to keep a consistent style of referencing. It the article uses short Harvard style referencing, then keep with that format.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Curtiss-Wright CW-19#Specifications (CW-19R). I'm not sure what should be done to fix "{{cvt|0.300|2}} machine-gun". Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done--Petebutt (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many times will it take before realizing that you need to conform to the existing citation style in an article instead of changing things to suit your own preferences. Referencing to the Douglas A2D Skyshark article--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calm the F**k down. There was a mix and match so I just standardised. See WP:CITEVAR.--Petebutt (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to do a little digging and use the format used by whoever first added a cite, provided that it complies with the normal rules for cite formats. It would also be good to proofread your changes for capitalization, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tip. Thrust-to-weight ratio is defined as a dimensionless quantity. Changing it to lbf/lb and a metric equivalent as in, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_P6M_SeaMaster&direction=next&oldid=896096789, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&direction=next&oldid=901841416, and others you've changed, really doesn't help matters. Michael F 1967 (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Seriously, this isn't funny. I'm not Wiki-savvy enough to trawl through your edits and correct the seemingly rather large number of misplaced changes you've made of correct dimensionless thrust-to-weight ratios into lbf/lb. It'd help Wikipedia greatly if you undid the mistaken conversions yourself. Michael F 1967 (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are wong!! how can it be dimsionless?? It would require the same units for both halves of the ratio, which they clearly aren't lbdf is NOT lb, likewise kN are NOT kg. Go back to your maths!!--Petebutt (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To remove confusion change the entry in the template to Propulsive efficiency. What i state still stands\! the ratio of thrust to weight is NOT dimensionless, whereas Propulsive Efficiency IS.--Petebutt (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing mass with weight - please read at least the first paragraph of the mass versus weight article. If you stick with SI units, it becomes clear.

As the Wikipedia article thrust-to-weight ratio (which I also linked to above) states: The thrust-to-weight ratio can be calculated by dividing the thrust (in SI units – in newtons) by the weight (in newtons) of the engine or vehicle and is a dimensionless quantity.

In SI units, thrust is measured in newtons, and weight - being the force exerted on an object by gravity - is also measured in newtons. Newtons divided by newtons is obviously a dimensionless ratio.

This is explained in the article linked to by every thrust/weight ratio entry in the performance tables I've corrected. It clearly explains your mistake. Please read the article thrust-to-weight ratio and please stop making incorrect changes. It would also be helpful if you reviewed your edits and undid the mistakes you have made when changing thrust-to-weight ratio entries Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change it to Thrust/Mass!! and i will comply, or just add Thrust/Mass. By your own argument Weight is NOT mass and vice versa--Petebutt (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my argument. Thrust is force - newtons. Weight is force - newtons. The ratio is thrust/weight, which is newtons per newton. This is dimensionless. Thrust/mass is not the quantity specified in the aircraft and engine templates we're dealing with.

Please read the explanation I provided above, and please read the linked articles. Then please adhere to reality, not your mistaken ideas. Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have edited the Mikoyan-Gurevich I-350 article, and added a mistaken label propulsive efficiency for the previously correctly labelled thrust/weight figure. Please do not make any more such changes.

Earlier correct version - updated by you to use the Aircraft specs template. That was a welcome change.

Subsequent incorrect version - in which you incorrectly labelled the referenced thrust/weight figure with propulsive efficiency.

So far, I've corrected (I think) over 200 thrust/weight figures to which you have erroneously given units. I do not want to have to repeat that exercise with respect to you mislabelling correct thrust/weight figures as propulsive efficiency. Please read the propulsive efficiency article to understand your mistake in this case. Propulsive efficiency cannot be expressed as a single number.

As the propulsive efficiency article states, overall propulsive efficiency ${\displaystyle \eta }$ is the efficiency with which the energy contained in a vehicle's propellant is converted into kinetic energy of the vehicle, to accelerate it, or to replace losses due to aerodynamic drag or gravity.

For reasons which should be obvious, it is a non-trivial job to determine propulsive efficiency which in any case varies greatly with operating conditions. Propulsive efficiency cannot be expressed as a single figure; it can only be described by a graph or other means of showing one parameter varying against another parameter (or parameters). Propulsive efficiency is, therefore, hardly ever given in a list of aviation specifications.

If a spec list says thrust/weight, please just leave it as thrust/weight.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've made the same error with:

• Myasishchev M-4
• Su-11 - and you changed the actual number in this case, and mistakenly provided a unit conversion (landing speed) to an explicit but unjustified precision of 9 figures past the decimal point. In any case, you should use the sigfig=N parameter rather than number of figures past the decimal point.
• Tu-160

I've corrected four of these new mistakes of yours. Please stop it.

Please check your thinking before making similar modifications to correct specifications in future. All you have to do is read the appropriate articles here on Wikipedia to avoid making this sort of mistake. Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting all links to the [[Template:Aircraft specifications]] and [[Template:Aircraft specs]] templates from talk pages - it makes the talk pages harder to follow and has no apparent benefit.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And stop edit warring - such action is disruptive.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not edir warring following the result of proper discussion--Petebutt (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are breaking talk page discussions - for example here you removed links to talk page discussions on another page! - even if the templates themselves are depreciated we still need to be able to link to the talk pages, or the discussions become worthless. For example - how can anyone confirm that there is a consensus to depreciate the use of these templates if all links to the discussions about them have been removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit Special:PermanentLink/913587953#Specifications_(B-47E) incorrectly appended (non-dimensional) to the previously correct purely numerical entry for thrust/weight ratio.

Since thrust/weight ratio is defined as a pure number, the correct form for this parameter is a pure number without any units or other words being involved.

Nothing anywhere suggests otherwise as you would know if you'd read up on the subject - the article linked to by every thrust/weight entry in all these spec lists explains the matter in full.

It is exactly as pointless and wrong to add dimensionless (the correct term) after giving the thrust/weight ratio figure as it is to add in units of length after (for example) the length parameter in aircraft specs.

Please leave thrust/weight entries as pure numbers. Anything else is just plain wrong and I'm getting a bit fed up with undoing errors that you've introduced.

If you think I'm wrong, please provide a reference to a reliable source that indicates otherwise.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aren'twebeing just a tad OCD about this?--Petebutt (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: firstly, please just stop messing things up. Yes, I know you mean well, and you do a lot of very decent work here. But I've noticed you're a bit sloppy about fine detail from time to time - and when I say from time to time, I mean I've corrected (I think) more than two hundred errors that you've introduced by changing correct specifications into incorrect specifications.

Can you say Argh! ?

Secondly, and rather more importantly:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/may/10/downside-increased-mental-health-awareness True OCD has many, often-debilitating features that put a serious dent in the individuals ability to live a normal life, and these usually have to all be present before someone is diagnosed with the condition. Again, it’s not something that comes and goes, like mild hay fever. Hence my usual response to someone claiming to be “a little bit OCD” is: “That’s nice. I’m a little bit five foot ten.” That’s not how things work.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/28/stephen-fry-ocd-eyes-tweet-mental-illness OCD is not, as Fry's tweet would nudge yet more people towards believing, a behavioural quirk. It's not an exaggerated love of order and hygiene. It's a disorder of thought: harrowing, distressing, torturing, impossible-to-shake thought. That's the O in OCD – obsession – and it's what causes most of the D from the same abbreviation. (It stands for disorder but means distress.)

OCD is a disorder that causes enormous distress. Thankfully, I don't suffer from it. For the sake of those who do, those who suffer further distress at the modern casual habit of using OCD as a put-down for anyone who (as in my case) cares about accuracy and precision, please don't use that sort of taunt again. Me? I'm not bothered; it's them I'm concerned about.

Finally, I'm pretty sure that there are Wikipedia guidelines about not getting personal about things (and for assuming good faith, as I am with respect to you). Well, I'm trying to educate you; what's your comment about me being OCD about? — that's meant as a rhetorical question, but one for your contemplation.

I recognise there's a good chance you find my interventions slightly irritating. But that sort of thing goes both ways, you know?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you just haver to take therough with the smooth!! As for the "(I think) two hundred" ONE mistake repeated, so don't beat your gums up too much!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One mistake repeated? No, more like over a couple of hundred instances of separately turning correct information into wrong information, and you were still at it yesterday.

As for taking the rough with the smooth—well, yes, that's life on an open encylopaedia project with everyone able to see what you're up to, isn't it? My beady eye is looking out. Michael F 1967 (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit Special:PermanentLink/913783721#Specifications_(Su-47), you replaced a thrust/weight ratio entry with two specifications supposedly from Jane's all the World's Aircraft 2000–01<ref name=JAWA00-01>{{cite book |title=Jane's all the World's Aircraft 2000–01 |editor1-last=Jackson |editor1-first=Paul|year=2000 |publisher=Jane's Information Group |location=Coulsdon, Surrey, United Kingdom |isbn=978-0710620118 |edition=91st |pages=457-458}}</ref> which you know to be incorrect by definition since they have units.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sukhoi_Su-47&diff=prev&oldid=913783721

One is supposed to use editorial discretion and apply common sense. If information supplied is plainly wrong, then it should not be included. If the information is supplied in a mistaken form for which the fix is obvious, then fix it before inclusion.

If a source credits Robert Waston-Watt rather than Robert Watson-Watt with work on WWII radar, well, correct the spelling. That's just editorial judgement combined with common sense. Same with this. It seems you've hit on a common mistake. By definition, thrust to weight ratio is a ratio. That means it's defined as a parameter which is a dimensionless pure number. Any source suggesting anything else is, by definition, wrong: either by mistake or design.

This is a matter purely of definition: by definition, ratios are dimensionless numbers. It's an established fact by definition. So by definition, anyone presenting a ratio as anything else has got it wrong either by mistake or design.

I do wonder what the actual entry in Jane's actually is: Jane's is a serious bit of work, but according to your edit they provide thrust/weight as 0.009 kN/kg or 0.0119 kN/kg, which is a bit silly when 9 N/kg-f and 11.19 N/kg-f make much more sense. Also, providing an aircraft thrust/weight ratio to three or four significant figures is highly dubious practice by definition since aircraft weight and thrust are generally not able to be specified as well as that—that's another matter of common sense.

Are you really just copying out the figures exactly as provided?

There is also the problem that you provide two figures labelled as follows:

• thrust/weight=0.009 kN/kg (0.918 lbf/lb) max
• thrust/weight=0.0119 kN/kg (1.213 lbf/lb) normal

That is also by definition incorrect. The ratio 0.918, supposedly maximum thrust/weight according to your edit, is smaller than the ratio 1.213, supposedly normal thrust to weight according to your edit.

Applying common sense and a bit of background knowledge, I'd guess you mean maximum take-off weight and normal take-off weight but I can't be sure.

So I've corrected your good faith edit of thrust/weight ratio which repeated an obvious mistake in an otherwise reliable source, and modified max and normal in line with what I think the book probably stated.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FFS do shut up!--Petebutt (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dear ;-) Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know you know that if you're going to move a page, you need to get the spelling right. The dull thumping noise you can hear off in the distance is once again my head hitting my desk.

Even with the correct spelling of Exercise Tiger Triumph to which I've moved the page, it's an orphan; perhaps adding a redirection page 'Tiger Triumph' would have been a good idea since that's the short form of the name and the original title of the article.

I've had a go, but I've not found a direct way to create a new page so I'm going via the slow wizard route. Perhaps you could create the appropriate redirection page?

Or maybe it's not needed: I'm a little confused at this point.

(Tiger Triumph is entirely different to Triumph Tiger)

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being?--Petebutt (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The important point is that you made a very silly spelling mistake which would have made it harder to find the article Exercise Tiger Triumph, if someone hadn't fixed your very silly spelling mistake. If you mis-spell something, it's harder to find when searching. The dull thumping noise is still my head hitting my desk. Please note: the previous sentence was humour. The first two sentences in this paragraph are serious, although they do contain a little sarcasm. Michael F 1967 (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petebutt

Thank you for creating Jurca MJ-53 Autan.

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Need an image.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creep^Talk 17:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: - fat chance. none in commons--Petebutt (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Petebutt: What about uploading a fair use image? scope_creep^Talk 17:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have one?--Petebutt (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:BLACKLIST. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Deryck C. 13:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I reverted your !vote at WP:BLACKLIST. This should be made on the RfD page, not on the redirect page itself. You can navigate there from the notice at the top if you want to add it back to the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petebutt, What a lively and entertaining discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Gabriola Island crash. You mentioned elevating Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents to policy. Do you believe that would be possible? How would one go about starting that process? - Samf4u (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, exactly, but it would involve opening a discussion probably at the Aviation accident project talk page.--Petebutt (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion here. - Samf4u (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort!--Petebutt (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you changed the articles I started on CD-78 and PH-75 to redirect back to the huge Nike Missile Site page. I happen to have done work on these two sites and that's why I created them. There is nothing wrong with each site eventually having its own page, and I think it is useful. And in fact putting the air photos I uploaded at the bottom of the large page I think lessens their value. Jstuby (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are they notable for something OTHER than just being Nike sites ; apply Wikipedia:Notability. Did anything happen there? Notabilty!! There is no reason why Nike sites should have individual pages and to list them is adequate, generally.--Petebutt (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did "anything" happen there? Of course something happened there. Each site has its unique history, whether a launch or an accident or some other military activity occurred or not. It so happens groundwater is contaminated at these two and many others that I am aware of, which is of public interest. It is useful to have a page that discusses the details of that, which I was working on, but I can't do that if it is redirected to a giant list page. I would like to undo the redirects, and maybe we can revisit this in a month? Jstuby (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have verifiable sources for these notable incidents then fill your boots, otherwise the re-directs would be re-instated and or article deleted. Despite your feelings very few of the Nike sites warrant stand-alone articles. Just because it was a Nike site does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article, I re-iterate "are they notable for something OTHER than being a Nike site"?. As for Groundwater, there is a case for mention in the main Nike article and / or local articles for areas affected. Build a case for articles on every Nike site and put it up for discussion!!--Petebutt (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:LAYOUT#Further reading - Further reading sections are for sources that aren't used as references - not for those that are used as references: To quote: "This section is not intended as a repository for general references or full citations that were used to create the article content. ".Nigel Ish (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127Н. Since you had some involvement with the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127Н redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pratt & Whitney Canada РТ6А-67R. Since you had some involvement with the Pratt & Whitney Canada РТ6А-67R redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, excuse me for not finding out how to award impressive-looking xxx_wings or yyyy_stars. Still I'd like to offer my bit of laud and appreciation for your ceaseless work, especially regarding specifications of historical aircraft. Many thanks! Keep up the good work! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, problem, thanks--Petebutt (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report Our 2019 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress (a record low backlog!); Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Automated archiving of requests; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2020. – Your Guild coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering why the hypehns? The company itself, and contemporary sources used either nothing (as with their logo), periods, dots mid way up the letters, or hyphens, seemingly as their fancy struck. We don't use periods or anything else in any of the other aircraft company acronyms, so why here? - NiD.29 (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, but in this case the Company designation was L-W-F Engineering Co Inc. (after Lowe, Willard and Fowler left). The evidence favours the hyphens, however, it might be prudent to find a concensus and add notes showing the variations. What it is almost certain NOT to have been is LWF or L W F--Petebutt (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has suggested spaces so forget that straw man, and they themselves were not sufficiently consistent to justify using hyphens (here they use periods when they write out the name, and nothing in their logo), and we don't use punctuation or other usual styling anywhere else. Lots of companies have acronyms for names, but none get periods on wikipedia, and those hyphens are nothing more than stylized periods, which is covered by MOS:POINTS. They are not an integral part of the name. - NiD.29 (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not adding hyphens for the hyphens sake!! That is how some historians have taken to be correct. The ad that you refer to has periods, central dots are not on a strandard keyboard so are frowned upon. Leave with the hyphens and note the variations (don't forget the printer for the company ads might not have printed it correctly).--Petebutt (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and many of those same historians use periods for other company names that are formed from acronyms - but the aircraft project frowns on that. - NiD.29 (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am wondering why you are changing both the Buhl Airsedan and Cunningham-Hall PT-6 pages FROM the standard referencing layout to a deprecated format? - NiD.29 (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because they weren't consistent, with bare urls, some refs not defined etc. etc. I have put them all in one format. If you want them in another feel free. I don't change ref styles, as a rule, only if there are inconsistencies and I only use one format. If you don't want me to change formats, ensure any articles you are interested in have consistent ref formats.--Petebutt (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deprecated format??--Petebutt (talk) 10:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mention deprecationhere Help:Citation Style 1--Petebutt (talk) 10:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

Dear, Thanks for your recent update to the Miles Aerovan article. Allow me to suggest you could further improve with an interlanguage-link to our French colleagues' page about the Hurel-Dubois company - even if it is there marked as a stub: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_de_construction_des_avions_Hurel-Dubois Yes, I know I could and should consider doing so myself, but these interlanguage links are quite hard on me, I am sure you can manage them better than my poor self. On the other hand, you are very welcome to ask for help in translating from French to English. Keep up the good work! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Phra Khanong. Since you had some involvement with the Phra Khanong redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Paul_012 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete, if you get a chance, Sikorsky S-434 needs a proper specs template. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was fast! - BilCat (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here. March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now! Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete, Aircraft Industries L 410 NG needs proper specs. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done!--Petebutt (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've recently moved Kerch Strait incident (2019) to 2019 Kerch Strait liquified gas tanker fire which is the correct title, however moving a page without a discussion is discouraged. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not idf it is a naming convention - by definition already discussed.--Petebutt (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete, do you access to any details on the Pratt & Whitney F401? It's currently a redirect to the F100 page, and never found enough details on it to warrant splitting it off. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's 77-78 page 825. Not a lot there. Proposed for the F-14B (F401-PW-400 - JTF22A-24A) Prototype ran in September 1972, two flight cleared engines fitted to an F-14B development aircraft in June 1973. A larger fan than the F100, only flown in the F-14B and XFV-12A:-

Thanks. It's better than nothing, and we can use the specs. - BilCat (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same info in 74-75 and 76-77--Petebutt (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Data from ^[1]

General characteristics

• Type: afterburning turbofan engine
• Length: ( 191 in (4,851 mm) F-100-PW-100 )
• Diameter: 50.5 in (1,283 mm)
• Intake diameter: 42.5 in (1,080 mm)
• Dry weight: 3,649 lb (1,655.2 kg)

Components

• Compressor: LP: 21x IGV, 3-stage Fan, 1-stage IP compressor (F401 only)

HP: 10-stage (1st three with IGVs), HP PR 8:1

• Combustors: Annular with duplex atomising nozzles
• Turbine: HPT: 2-stage max gas temp 1,399 °C (2,550 °F; 1,672 K), max rpm 14,600

LPT: 2-stage, max rpm 9,600

Performance

• Maximum thrust: 16,400 lbf (72,951 N) MTO dry

28,090 lbf (124,951 N) MTO wet

• Overall pressure ratio: Overall 26.9:1
• Bypass ratio: 0.65
• Specific fuel consumption: 0.62 lb/lbf/h (0.018 kg/N/ks) MTO dry

2.45 lb/lbf/h (0.069 kg/N/ks) MTO wet

--Petebutt (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a copy of Bill Norton's book American Military Gliders of World War II: Development, Training, Experimentation, and Tactics of All Aircraft Types and you'll find drawings and specifications of the BG-1 and BG-2 bomb gliders on pages 209 and 210 of this book. I've already written a draft article Draft:Fletcher BG-2, and Norton (2008, 2012) includes a photo of the first BG-1 (built in manned configuration to test the BG-1's flight characteristics), and you may want to ask Bill Norton to provide you with 3-view drawings of the BG-1 and BG-2, because Andrade (1979, p. 59, 96) mistakenly states that the three BG-2s on order were originally to have been completed as Frankfort CG-1s, when in fact the BG-2 was a completely different design than the CG-1 and the BG-2 contract was signed in April 1942, shortly after the CG-1 contract was cancelled (Norton (2008) rightly points out that the BG-2, like the BG-1, was derived from the CQ-1 drone control plane.

Andrade, John (1979). U.S.Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909. Midland Counties Publications. ISBN 0-904597-22-9.

Bill Norton: "American Military Glider Experiments of WWII", AAHS Journal Vol. 53 No. 2, Summer 2008

Norton, Bill. American Military Gliders of World War II: Development, Training, Experimentation, and Tactics of All Aircraft Types. Atglen, PA: Shiffer Publishing, Ltd. pp. 209-210.Supercalifornication (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

OK, what are you asking me to do? Seems you have it covered and anyhthing that needs a tweak, we can do, or point it out for you to do. Just cite the references for pertinent facts and anything that might be contoversial / contested, in which case tou will need to offer both sides of the argument. Small tip with Aircraft specs, nothing will show until you save it with the units specified "imp" for mph/mi/ft (UK and US up to about 1960), "kts" for kn/nmi/ft or "met" for m/km/km/h (any nation that was using the metric system at the time). (Note that Japan confusingly mixed and matched but for our purposes use "met").--Petebutt (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded a 3-view drawing of the Fletcher BG-2 (courtesy of George Cully) at Draft:Fletcher BG-2, which shows what the BG-2 would have looked like had it been built. I also uploaded an image of a Fletcher BG-1 at Muroc in 1942 at Wikimedia Commons.Supercalifornication (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

I'm curious to see if there are any sources you're aware of that contain specifications for the Brochet MB.60, Cierva-Lepère C.27, and DAR 3, because specs for the MB.60 and C.27 have been mostly hard to come by for me.Supercalifornication (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

http://avions.brochet.free.fr/Histoire4.html is a start--Petebutt (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brochet_MB-60--Petebutt (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shall check Gaillard in the morning and get back to you.--Petebutt (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaillard, Pierre (1990). Les Avions Francais de 1944 a 1964 (in French). Paris: Editions EPA. p. 87. ISBN 2-85120-350-9.

I just added Gaillard's reference to the reference list for the Draft:Brochet MB.60 article.Supercalifornication (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

• DAR 3:- Ivan Borislavov. DAR-3 "Garvan" - A Miracle from Bozhurishte
• Konstantin Konstadinov. Aircraft built in Bulgaria
• Dimitar Nedelyakov. Breathtaking power to the kingdom of Bulgaria
• AirMagazine 20. Borislav Petrov. DAR-1 & DAR-1A
• Flieger Revue Extra No.18. Peter Korrel. Winter in Bulgarien
• Jet & Prop 1993-06. Ivan B. Petrov. Die bulgarischen Flugzeuge des deutschen Professors Herman Winter
• Le Fana de l'Avaition 1991-06. Jean Noel, Malcolm Passingham. La production aeronautique bulgare
• L + K 1991-01. Vaclav Nemecek. DAR 3A Garvan III

https://sites.google.com/site/stingrayslistofrotorcraft/cierva-lepre-c27--cl10

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/cierva-lep%C3%A8re-c-l-10-autogiro-cierva-c-27.20031/

Specifications and info for the Cicaré CH-4, Cicaré CH-5, Cicaré CH-6, and Cicaré CH-8 is available at these links:

• http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/cicare_ch-4.php
• http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/cicare_ch-5.php
• http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/cicare_ch-6.php
• http://www.cicare.com.ar/cicare8/

Therefore, if time permits, you can use these weblinks to create articles for the Cicaré CH-4, Cicaré CH-5, Cicaré CH-6, and Cicaré CH-8.Supercalifornication (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Except you can't: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Aviastar. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are better links (not falling afoul of copyright infringement) that you can use to create articles for the Cicaré CH-4, Cicaré CH-5, Cicaré CH-6, and Cicaré CH-8:

• https://vertipedia.vtol.org/aircraft/getAircraft/aircraftID/39
• http://www.cicare.com.ar/cicare8/
• https://vertipedia.vtol.org/aircraft/getAircraft/aircraftID/40
• http://www.helistart.com/helicopters/Cicare/CH-6

That should be good enough.Supercalifornication (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

- Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just created draft articles Draft:Goupy Type A and Draft:Goupy Type B, and I thought you may want to surf the book French Aerlanes Before the Great War for drawings or other info about the Goupy Types A and B that you can incorporate into those articles.Supercalifornication (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

I just created the article Draft:Laister-Kauffman, and I was thinking you can improve this article by mentioning the Laister Sailplanes company, since the CG-10 was the only cargo glider designed by Jack Laister, who was involved in sailplane designs.

By the way, you can also add the specifications for the Naval Air Establishment Nin Hai, Naval Air Establishment Chiang Gaen, and Naval Air Establishment Chiang Hau, since Angelucci (2001) provides specs for the Nin Hai.

Angelucci, Enzo (2001). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft 1914 to the Present. Edison, NJ: Chartwell books. ISBN 0-7858-1359-4.Supercalifornication (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

I found an online entry for the Albatros L 70 and even though it mentions the specified role and engine, it doesn't contain any other specifications. Are you aware of any source that contains specifications for the L 70?Supercalifornication (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

2019 Pilatus PC 12 crash is at AFD and looks headed for deletion in any case....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I tend not to take that into account and move articles where necessary!--Petebutt (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article during an AFD certainly isn't recommended. Per WP:AFDEQ, While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. You can always move afterwards if the article is kept, and it don't matter anyway if it's deleted. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oye problemo.--Petebutt (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete, do you think that this user could be back as new sock? Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same myself! He got banned for persistent copyvio and his style,or lack of it, is almost identical, with poor spelling bad refrerences and not even getting the info in cited references correct. I don't understand the mindset, is this like a supertroll from Putin to discredit wikipedia?--Petebutt (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I'll ask an admin to look at it later today. - BilCat (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to. I've learned from past experience that pasting copyrighted material from other webpages into new Wiki articles is in violation of Wikipedia rules in copyrighted, so I've refrained from pasting copyrighted material, because that is plagiarism. The best thing you could do is delete Special:Contributions/Extrapolaris because I'm not pasting copyrighted material onto new pages. And besides, I'm not working as a troll for Putin.Supercalifornication (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

OK, but please slow down some more and try to get more referenced content. It does sound alarm bells when floods of articles appear which are of such poor quality, it seems to suggest a hidden agenda. Or is it me being paranoid. Don't forget you aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you!!!LOL--Petebutt (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to create a number of missing articles and supply them with one or two references so that you could subsequently add info from non-English sources. I don't feel paranoid or have a hidden agenda; I routinely create aviation-related articles for some prototype military aircraft, and I noted that when writing the Jakob Lohner article, the only thing that links Jakob Lohner to aviation is the fact that the company he headed from 1862-1887 was involved in carriage and automobile production for most of the late 19th century, but built warplanes in World War I, because Jakob himself died in 1892, decades before WW1 broke out.70.175.134.8 (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Great, but please be more patient and develop fewer, better quality articles and everybody is happy.--Petebutt (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the deluge of stubs. Far better to spend the time filling out the article than to leave a stub with one dubious reference almost no-one has access to. Stubs will almost never get developed, but a redlink can spur someone to write the full article. Personally I prefer being able to start from scratch, rather than work from someone else's often misdirected attempts, and I am less likely to be interrupted mid-edit stream.

In my experience, other than for Roumania, the best references for any aircraft are almost always in the language of its originating country, but English sources are needed for the English wikipedia, and a reliance on sources in other languages should be avoided if at all possible - but with some cross checking to ensure they agree. FWIW, the Internet archive, which also hosts the Wayback Machine has a considerable number of magazines and reference books available - some out of copyright, and others still copyrighted that you can "borrow" while researching something. - NiD.29 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot something - to paraphrase someone (a prof somewhere iirc) - to use one source is still plagiarism, but to use many sources is research. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did contact an admin, and she confirmed that the user is not adding copyvios. However, the socking is still an issue, and @JJMC89: will have to be informed, as he was the admin who blocked Extrapolaris for scokpuppetry. That is something Wikipedia usually does not tolerate. - BilCat (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you can do is delete Special:Contributions/Extrapolaris and User:Extrapolaris because I'm not pasting copyrighted material onto new pages, and the original reason I was blocked was copyright violations. I carelessly sockpuppeted because the original account was blocked for copyright violations, and I've learned the hard way in understanding how I commit copyright violations. Supercalifornication (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

As I said, socking is something Wikipedia doesn't tolerate. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat, as you noticed, I've blocked Supercalifornication for socking. FYI, NinjaRobotPirate updated Extrapolaris's block for socking, I just removed talk page access. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the talk page for the MS406 regarding an edit you made when changing specification templates [1]- when you changed the engine power from 860 hp to 860 kW - can you check this and confirm whether it was correct? - this does seem to differ from what other references say but you did add a new reference when you made this change.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Zeppelin LZ 32 right? It is a M-class right? -- Thats Just Great (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK. For naming check the List of Zeppelins, this gives Company designation then tactical numbering. Because the Imperial German Army caused so much confusion, deliberately and successfully, their trickery echoes through to the present day!--Petebutt (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I see now. I found that the aircraft career infobox template didn't fit well with Zeppelins. Also, as a convention, it is usual to give all the alternate names/designations in the lead and for their first use to be in bold.--Petebutt (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another thingg (chest poke, chest poke) please don't use deprecated specs templates. Only one now in use - Template:Aircraft specs. You might find Template:WPAVIATION creator of use for any aviation article.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict