Archives

Archive 1 - 2006 Archive 2 - January - March 2007 Archive 3 - April - May 2007 Archive 4 - June - July 2007 Archive 5 - August - September 2007 Archive 6 - October - November 2007 Archive 7 - December 2007 - January 2008 Archive 8 - February 2008 - March 2008

NOTES

• If you initiated a conversation here, I will most likely respond to your comments here, rather than on your talk page (except for certain people from Alberta or Australia!)

• If you are discussing an article, I would prefer to use that article's talk page, unless you'd prefer not to use that page for some reason, such as commenting on a particular user's edits in semi-privacy. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments.

• Most comments will be archived about once a month. Critical comments are welcome, but those containing highly-offensive or profane material will be deleted immediately, and the overall content ignored.

• NO BOTS ALLOWED!! You'll have post here yourself!

• Also, talk to me like a normal person, and don't just quote Wiki guidelines to me - I'm NOT a newbie . (Policies are somewhat different). I consider it rude, and will likely just delete your comments, and ignore the point, as guidleines can be ignored. If you do it anyway, and turn out to be wrong, an apology would be the considerate thing to make, though you probably won't since it's not policy to apologize for your mistakes. (If Jimbo wnated people to apologize for their mistakes, he'd have made it a policy, right?!)

• If you want me to take your opinions and edits seriously, you ought to Register!. Otherwise one never knows who really made the edits, especially in the case of dynamic IP addresses.

• If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism! This also applies to Rollbacks.

• I reserve the right to clean up this page in any manner I chose, including the use of Rollbacks for non-vandalism, and especially if you made more than one edit. Please do NOT repost what I've removed, unless you are an admin issuing a formal warning, though I'll probably still remove it!

• If you wish to keep a matter confidential,such as disscussing personal and/or confidential information, you may use the "E-mail" feature (usually activated!). I will respond in kind unless otherwise requested. This is not for discussing routine matters regarding editing on pages - use the article talk pages for that.

Thanks.

Title Case May Be Used in Headings on This Page

Me, myself, and I use serial commas.

first of all I hope you are feeling better... question, on the Boeing B-29 survivors talk page I have noted the it has been tagged with the boxes "start Class" (Military history WikiProject) & "list class" WikiProject Aviation. Opening the boxes reveils several questions that need to be answered:

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: |B-Class-1=yes/no |B-Class-2=yes/no |B-Class-3=yes/no |B-Class-4=yes/no |B-Class-5=yes/no

Help how do I do this and where is the template call? Davegnz (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Those fields go in the WP Project banners. Look at Talk:F/A-18 Hornet or Talk:AH-1 Cobra for an example. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - thanksDavegnz (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BillCJ, the good number at Number built is (at end 2007) 55. 20 Rafale M, 27 B & 8 C from french gouvernement. --Toubabmaster (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then add the right number, and don't just delete the wrong one. Also, please remember to leave an edit summary when you delete or change something, other wise no one will know why you did it, and may revert you like I did. - BillCJ (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for the intercept :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is an {{inuse}} tag built into the template (which was, as you noted, in place in this instance). In practically every instance where there's been a problem, it's been with someone using Twinkle or similar. In any case, I've started literally hundreds of articles this way now, and I can think of maybe three instances like this... nothing more than an occasional annoyance. But your support is, as always, appreciated! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]]ANigg (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up a message on his talk page... its not very strong right now; I dont want to bite this newbie, who has less than 50 edits. Check it out to see if its ok....

In case he doesn't reply, it might also be a good idea for you to take the initiative and put a message on his talk page.

Hope I could help. Thanks for informing me about this. Cheers. Sniperz11_@^CS 13:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was this really needed? That is an unfortunate side effect, yes, but snide comments generally aren't appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's necessary, as the bot's owner seems uninclined to address the problems when approached in the usual manner. - BillCJ (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been keeping up with the VH-71 that well until the last year I guess. Just seems the development is backwards from normal. They are developing the VIP helicopter first instead of VIP'ing an in service military helicopter. Although they are militarizing a commercial helicopter too. The Navy moved Capt. Gaddis over to direct the VH-71 program a few months ago from the F/A-18 program. That should help. I'll e-mail you more on this. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you get my e-mail related to this? -Fnlayson (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I didn't realize you expected a response. Hopefully the program will improve now, but with a new administration coming up next year, there may be lots of changes to many programs. Be interesting to watch. - BillCJ (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not exactly. Just figured you'd say something about it; good or bad. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - didn't mean to sound snippy. I am still a bit perturbed over the Wankel foolishness, which I just cleaned out. Aren't new users wonderful?! Oh well, we were all new users here once! - BillCJ (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No big deal. A bunch of wankers huh?  :) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Apparently so! ;) - BillCJ (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page should list anything that is likely to be meant by that name, even when it is technically wrong.  Randall Bart   Talk  00:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, works for me now, but the DAB-page nazis may disagree. - BillCJ (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I am a DAB-page nazi. I am currently disambiguating [[Army Air Corps]]. Look at this article. It says he joined the Army Air Corps in 1917. I'm going to fix it, but clearly people will continue to carelessly use "Army Air Corps" for pre-1926 and post-1941 references. The dab page should tell them where to go.  Randall Bart   Talk  02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guru, but never nazi! You're actually care about what others think, and take the time to explaine yourself, rather than quoting MOS guidelines as if they were unbreakable poilicy. Besides, a DAB-page nazi would only have one link per entry! You realize that sometimes more than one are necessary. - BillCJ (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Novi Avion, the IAR-95 never flew due to the insufficient funds existent in the last years of the communist regimes in both countries. As no prototype was built, nor much information was available during the communist period, i'm afraid there won't be many sources useful for us. Also, as it was a project cancelled before the revolution, nobody bothered in our days to write/post anything about it. However, i'll have a look through the Romanian article and see if i'll be able to make some additions here. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that bec I couldn't read comments next to that.I assure you that I was going to restore that comment thats why i logged in again. I'have revised the comparable list of f-15 which was for long incorrect check it.There were great guns like Eurofighter, rafale and Super Hornet in that list.I'hv deleted them. And about the edits I do realise that it was my fault. I was typing this comment before you typed that comment on mine.

Harsh1125 (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

check it out please. The moment I change it someone changes it again. I really fail to understand what is typhoon, Super Hornet , Rafale doing in that list.It dosn't make any sense. That aircraft list is misleading. Simple logic you cant compare 1970s aircraft to a modern 4+ gen aircraft. Harsh1125 (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill: Just to let you know after the last edit he did, which you reverted, I left Hueydoc a note on his user talk page. He seems to have extensive knowledge of the UH-1, we just have to help him with the problem of WP:OR and refs! - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in why you think the existing image is better than the one I swapped it to? The LAPD one is higher resolution, sharper, covers the entire helicopter including complete blades and is a Featured Picture. Mfield (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the newer one: Image:LAPD Bell 206 Jetranger.jpg looks worse than Image:Chc bell 206.jpg because of the rotor blades are more blurry and the blurriness takes up more of the image. That's my take anyway... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's pretty standard photographic practice to allow the blades to blur slightly if the aircraft is flight as else it looks really odd, some form of movement needs to be conveyed to show that the blades are spinning. Mfield (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's understandable. I was not suggesting 0 blurriness, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the LAPD image has too much blue with the fuselage and the sky, it seems to clash. I'm not going to edit-war over it, however. Btw, I had no clue what an FP was, so that didn't mean anything to me in your edit summary. - BillCJ (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up to now, we've only been combining different manufacturers (or brands) into the one navbox where there's been a continuation of a model numbering system from one to the other; therefore it would be most consistent if GD had its own, small navbox. And we do have small navboxes of only 2-3 aircraft... a leaf I took from WP:SHIPS back in February (plenty of 2- or 3-hull classes with their own navboxes). Just 2¢ worth from the consistency Nazi... --Rlandmann (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a look at your sandbox for it, it's clear Donald & Polmar & Floyd don't cover it fully, so some help would not be amiss. One thing, tho. They do clearly distinguish it from the H-19, which you seem to have conflated (or is that an artifact of how you're using the sandbox?) Trekphiler (talk) 11:51 & 11:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's how I start an article: I take an existing on a similar model, copy it, and then add new info, and take away the old. I usually leave the Lead text as a pattern to write the new Lead, and the specs for later use when I get ready to add that. Trust me, I do know the difference between the H-18 and H-19! Thanks for getting those main pages started, and I'll see what I can do to help out. I may have some Fair-use pics to add too. - BillCJ (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to appraise the situation more closely in light of your apparent sense of humour, newly installed? FWiW, note correct Canajan spelling of the word. Bzuk (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, recently Daredevil555 brought up the concern that these 2 aircraft are not comparable to the MiG-35. Me myself took these aircraft (MiG-35/J-10/F-16 B 50/52) as "contemporary" aircraft, but never realized that I actually have no idea why I had such a conclusion. As I am too, curious about this matter, can you explain the criteria for the "Comparable aircraft" section, for me and Daredevil555? Regards ChowHui (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got your mail. I'll happily false flag for you. Less disruption here & help there is a win-win. Trekphiler (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For diligent and amazingly fast work in merging two articles into Waco CG-4 Ahunt (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree with you more. Posted a response on the article discussion page. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill: thanks for your revert on this article! There is no ref for this on Operation Nickel Grass either! I left the IP editor a note at User talk:72.0.180.2. - Ahunt (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I thought! I didn't have time to check that page out, so thanks for following that up. - BillCJ (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit-war on such a high-profile tempalte such as {{Infobox television}}. Please discuss your changes first on the talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a discussion about changing the font size on the Infobox page, so how is it necessary to disucc reverting them? - BillCJ (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Dave, "Liberal" means somthing quite different in much of the wolrd than it does in the US, and is usually closer to a US "center-right conservative". The proper insult would be something akin to "hard-left labourite or socialist", not that many from those countries would think of those terms as an insult. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected ;))) - next time I will think-up a bloody good insult that means the same to the great unwashed but does not get me thrown off wiki Davegnz (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, thanks for your note. They are both the same basic airframe, so personally I would call them sub-models of the same aircraft type and put them all on one page called Beechcraft Premier. If the amount of info gets too large then split them at that point into separate articles. - Ahunt (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit was that it's not a dab page, and there is at least some content there. If you have a better, non-dab, destination, then that would be great. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ambiguous title that "disambiguating - isn't that what DAB pages are for? Howefver, I'm sure there is yet another newly minted, obsure guideline that 3 people made up and think is a policy now that is against linking redirects to DAB pages, so whatever. - BillCJ (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. I'll put it back again, but do shoot me a message if there's a better place for it and I'll be happy to follow up. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of the links to the dab page came from a few redirects that were variations on "CRJ family" - which if I read you right is actually the 200/100 (and 440) followed by the 700/900/1000, so the CRJ section of Bombardier Aerospace seems like a reasonable starting point. Folks can then go to the 200 or the 700 if they're sufficiently curious. If there's enough context to say it's one or the other, then that's what I'll link to. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, I am seriously considering about retiring from editing in wikipedia, it seems to me that there are a lot of rabid deletionist at work all wanting to tag the works or images uploaded by others (such as myself) for speedy deletion (or maybe a slow death leading up to the execution date). I went through so much effort to search and upload some of these hard to find images for use on a few of article which I have helped to tweaked and improved, it makes an editor and that his effort is not being appreciated here. Look at RSAF Black Knights and the subsequent discussion here Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#RSAF Black Knights with regards to the images I had uploaded, some of those were unique in that I cannot find a better replacement to illustrate the points in some other articles (such as for this island). Someone place a request for fair use review on these 7 images, all of which are found in the RSAF Black Knights page:

1. Image:RSAF Black Knights.JPG,
2. Image:Black Knights 2000-1.jpg,
3. Image:Black Knights 2000-2.jpg,
4. Image:RSAF Black Knights 5 & 6.JPG,
5. Image:RSAF Black Knights & Pukau Sudong.JPG,
6. Image:RSAF Black Knights & Pulau Sudong 2.JPG,
7. Image:25th Anniversary RTAF & RSAF exercises.JPG.

They did so without even bother reading through the entire article(s) first and I asked them to do so but nobody replied me on this, proving to me that they just simply tag the images for the sake of it as I argued against so. BTW, would I be able to delete all my uploaded images if I make a request for it? I want to leave absolutely nothing behind should I chose to egress from wikipedia. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like some knee jerk tagging. You have what looks like good fair use rationales for all those images. Read over them and see if you can add any more detail or additional reasons. This image Image:747 flight attendants.jpg is one I've seen put up for deletion. Also, try to take them out of the gallery format in the Blackknights article so each image illustrates some text or put details in the captions. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bill, I was wondering if you could go though this article and appraise it to see if it still qualifies as Start class or perhaps maybe B or A class? Thanks. --Dave1185 (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a specific section that you wanted more references in, in this article? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the talk page. It was obvious to me.

• Have you ever thought of putting that in an edit summay? "Lacks sections headings and overuse of bolding" would fit very easily. Even a summary staying "See talk page" on your second revert would have been helpful. However, it would probably taken you just as long to fix those MAJOR problems as to keep adding the stupid tag! - BillCJ (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill! Nice to hear from you.

From the ref it does look like your assumption is correct:

• MLJ - Legacy 450
• MSJ - Legacy 500

That also seems to follow in that the MLJ had eight seats and therefore should have a lower number than the MSJ with its ten seats. Generally a higher model number means a bigger aircraft as in the Gulfstream line-up.- Ahunt (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - glad to help! - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it was a better quality image. My bad. Sorry.

DineshAdv (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your essay on The Really-Free Library. I have to say, when I first saw the title, I read it as The Reality-Free Library. It seems like an equally good name, for basically the same reasons. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll have to consider that name, as you are right, it does fit! - BillCJ (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill - best general survey that I'm aware of is Gunston's World Encyclopedia of Aero Engines; quite a different sort of "encyclopedia" from his work on aircraft manufacturers; the entries in this encyclopedia are on the engine manufacturers themselves, but are long, multi-page entries that go into quite some detail on individual engines. The emphasis is historical rather than technical, and the book is quite light on actual specifications, but is a good start. Copes from $US20 and up on Abebooks. Other than that, I guess you already know that Jane's contains a highly-detailed technical description of aero engines in current production every year. If there's a book that combines the best of both worlds out there, I haven't encountered it yet, but would be sure to buy it if I did - there certainly seems to be a gap there.

As for the T38/T40, Allison, the People and the Power: A Pictorial History can be browsed via Google books here and gives a few snippets. I also found a bit of "color" in this Air & Space Magazine article on the XF-84H. My copy of Gunston is hiding from me at the moment; but when it resurfaces, I'll certainly add whatever it has to say about this engine to the article. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes - there are quite a few books that cover engines of certain types, eras, and/or nations, but nothing (AFAIK) with any kind of broad scope. These specialist works are also very pricey! Crowood Press publishes some very nice ones. Maybe when we've finished adding aircraft and start looking at the engine redlinks I'll be able to justify shelling out for a couple :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill,

You put disputed tags on the Il-14 article where it says "These changes greatly improved performance in engine out conditions", which was cited from Bill Gunston's Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft. What is questionable about this statement? Gunston makes specific reference to the changes (particularly an improved anti-icing system) "...greatly improving performance in adverse conditions and especially with one engine out." Nigel Ish (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I stand corrected on the article in progress. It was my mistake to incorrectly state there was nothing in the making and I apologize.

Having said that, I still believe that the information I deleted, though clearly useful in the article you're working on dealing with the helicopters themselves, does not contribute much to the article on the film. The techinical details about the helicopters, as far as WP:MOSFILM#Trivia is concerned, are more of a fan fact than an important fact. Again, they would be important in the helicopter article but I sincerely doubt their importance in the film article. Rather than deleting it again and starting an edit war, I will ask for a third opinion from an experienced editor in the WP:WikiProject Films.

Peace! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWik78 (talk • contribs)

The trivia has been cleaned up at Blue Thunder. I moved the main helicopter entries to a helicopter section in that article. SWik78 cleaned out a lot of the other ones. I copied a lot of that to Blue Thunder helicopter sandbox just in case. Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, noted your revisions to my text changes to the Texan-II page which, incidentally, i think is very well presented and compiled. the question of the exact relationship between the pc-9 and the texan-II in the relevant period, by this i mean the original jpats competition, proposal evaluation and up to the final u.s.a.f. selection, will always be open to discussion. the pc-9 was the original platform for the development which was finalised as the T-II. it was developed from the pc-9 and there was a license/royalty agreement with pilatus. i am familiar with the pc-9 and was senior. v.p., sales, pacific rim at the manufacturer for many years. the original pc-9 specification committee, of which i was a member, was entirely marketing driven and it was my position paper proposing 'pc-9' as type-designation and as the then leading brand which was adopted (in the early 1980's). the later jpats/U.S.A.F. result was a lifeline for the mil-division of beech, which had suffered for some years as a lame-duck with the poorly performing t-34c and with no other prospects. i have always thought that a company such as beech with a very successful brand and a very loyal customer base (mil and civil) is the best home for an outstanding aircraft such as the t-II. i also believe that the strength of the beech reputation was influential in d.o.d. thinking. how you prefer to represent the pc-9/t-II relationship is not for me to say but i would only like you to know that my edit was not based on ignorance.

newsubj: ref the t-37: i was head of sales w.europe at cessna commercial jet division back in the early 1970's. this brought me also into serious contact with T and A 37. as i recall, the aircraft, depending on configuration, is known variously as: tweety bird, tweet, super-tweet or dragonfly. these things are always the subject of discussions, which are rarely settled. best wishes, bruce condellbruce (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your remarks. As I'm sure you know, it's rare that the US buys any foreign aircraft without making many changes, from the Canberra on, the AV-8A, C-27J, and UH-72A being rare exepctions. This always makes the situation complicated, and it's good to have an insider's view on these issues to help guide us, even though some of that knowlegde is uncitable. As to the Tweet, we in the WP:AIR project genereally use the DOD's MDS releases for official desgnations and names. The 2004 edition lists "Tweet" as the official name for the T-37, and the MDS file is cited in the T-37 article. Of course, users and observers invariably come up with their own names, again complicating the situation, and I'm usually not dogmatic about which name we use unless it's listed int he MDS. I do hope you'll continue to read and edit the aircraft articles, and I'm sure you can be a good contributor, and source of knowledge to other editors. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm? This is some sort of misunderstanding:( I never violated 3RR in ACAC ARJ21. There MUST be misunderstanding on your side. First information should not be removed from article just on the basis that Internet server, that source links to is down or web server have technical problems. There is multiple ways of dealing with situation including placing ^{[citation needed]} tag or finding alternate source or relinking mirrored page of original source. And simple deletion do look like vandalism. After first attempt of explaining that to original deleter, I did fixed link to avoid farther edit war. That is point in time when you came and start placing "dispute" mark and start to revert my edits. Actually - you won't find even 2 reversions made by me, that link to essentially same page, not talking about 3 of them. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 06:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And look at this. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 06:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the belated explanation. However, I've already reported you to an admin, and I will let him sort it out, if he chooses to. Perhaps in the future, you'll talk first, revert later. Perhaps. A {{dispute-inline}} tag is no different in ultimate purpose than a {{fact}}, and I don't appreciate your removing it as if I were just another vandal. No matter how right you think you are, nothing is lost by slowing down and discussing first. Btw, Meatwaggon gave a good edit summary on both his deletions, so it doesn't qualify as vandalism, even if removing it was not the best choice. - BillCJ (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]