User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 16

	Archives
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #256

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

Please add all new material to the bottom of the page!

DYK[edit]

On November 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Northrop Grumman Guardian, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rampant One Tree Hill vandal is back![edit]

Hello, Akradecki. This vandal...[1]...that you blocked and was blocked before that...is back.[2] And definitely needs blocking again. Flyer22 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If I'm not around, you'll get faster service if you post to WP:AIV. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't know what kind of block you did, if you did a block, since I don't see a block on that vandal's talk page...but that vandal has obviously stopped for now. I wasn't aware that that vandal had also vandalized articles such as Time Warner and Ford Ranger until I checked his or her so-called contributions. You reverted the Time Warner edit, and the other edits were reverted by other editors. I thank you again for your immediate response and help on this matter. Flyer22 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

States Reorganization Commission[edit]

Alan/John, I'm trying to AFD the States Reorganization Commission article after my PROD was removed. However, following the instrustions on the AFD template is proving to be a mess. Can you help me sort this out? If you think an AFD is not appropriate here, go ahead and do what you think is best. Thanks. (Also posted on User talk:John) - BillCJ 20:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have created the page Para_369_to_389_of_SRC in which I have included scanned images of the report. (I also referred this page in States_Reorganization_Commission ). What is the process to make the page Para_369_to_389_of_SRC as wikisource? Thanks. (also posted on User talk:BillCJ) - Ramcrk (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veropedia[edit]

Made you an account, welcome! Please check your email to pick up your password. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

747[edit]

minor comment I see that you're one of two commenting on the 747 article in our quest to improve it, maybe even to FA status. It's nice that the progression is constant and slow. That shows the article is stable. That's the joy of cooperation. I'm on wikibreak and will edit only occasionally in the next 2 weeks. Thanks for your comments on that talk page. Archtransit 21:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you're an administrator. Your wikipedia colleague (administrator) Reedy Boy got me started writing. Nice to know another aviation administrator!Archtransit 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin[edit]

yes, i was wrong to remove portion of text. i cant do my edits again due to WP:3RR. but do you consider fair that we have no images from Nazi concentration camps and nuremberg trials documents in Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler and we have a plenty of them in Joseph Stalin? and do you consider fair removal of an image of a monument to him in Gori and leaving the pic of a dismantled sculpture claimed to be " the only existing monument"? Av0id3r 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so if you think it's unfair, why don't you dedicate your time to adding what you think is missing? That's how a true encyclopedia builder would think. I could list dozens of articles that don't have as much material. Is it fair that F-22 Raptor has so much info and images while MC-21 doesn't? Should I remove most of the content from the F-22 just because the other is essentially a stub? That would be absurd, as is your argument. Quit being contentious, and get back to positive contributions. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AKRadecki. You seem fit to comment on my discussion entry to the "Stalin" article:"The problem with all this is that it appears to by your analysis of the events. What would cause your arguments to actually hold water is if you provided clear citations to accessible references that back up your statementsItalic text. Let me explain something to you (my fault, it seems to me obvious at the time of writing the entry): 1. I cannot quote directly. As you can suspect my mother tongue is not English/American so I have read the books mentioned in my post in Polish (mostly). While I am perfectly capable of amateur translation of relevant passages, I do think that "amateur" translation is something that should not happen when you are quoting directly - if you translate something from language X to Y tnen back to X you are liable to change - even involuntarily and unknowingly - the meanings and nuances. This de facto is twisting the quotation and as such opens an enormous field for fraud, as you are aware. 2. I hope that you do not see the necessity for me to buy english versions of these books to participate in discussion and also that you can see why it is no use to refer to relevant page numbers. 3. Franky speaking, I found this demand to use direct quotation a bit infuriationg. How can you pick the right sentence to support the entry on the subject from a 700-page book written WHOLLY on the subject? This is not newspaper... But I understand that this is to discourage liars.

Thus said - we are in the pickle. Wikipedia should be for everybody, not English for English speakers, etc. Because this opens another gate to fraud. What hurt me most about your remark - the rest of remarks on that discussion page except one, are completely devoid of ANY reference to book, article, discussion, etc not saying anything about quoting one! so why pick on me? I have at least named LEGITIMATE, EXISTING, ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH-BASED SOURCES? Regards, Krzysztof Rogalski. PS I have no ambition of being an editor of ANY of Wikipedia articles - I do not think I have the necessary knowledge or other charts of character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.227.56 (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Bramall[edit]

I'm asking for a deletion review of Katie Bramall. Since you speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -Ricksy 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College graduate. You can see's she qualified some time ago at http://www.gmc-uk.org/register/search/index.asp -Ricksy 01:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't make her notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a who's-who of college grads. Do you know how many real docs out there who've actually written important material that aren't here? How is being a quiz show guest notable? Are you gonna write bios on all the thousands of contestants on Jeopardy? AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of G.91 and some other thingies[edit]

Last week you moved the G.91R to draft. Nobody cared about since then, another proof that the issue is *not* to improve articles, is keep out me from editing. Perhaps i'll working to it, but still i am pretty curious. There are texts about B-50, CF-104, F-86, G.91R keept out by you- know-who. When and where they will go in the main page? When and where someone accepted to work on them avoiding the 'usual' rollback made by you-know-who? Let's make it clear: this situation cannot be supported with only one part involved, and nobody allow someone to roll back sistematically the staff made by others. Next days i'll start to post them. IF you or whetever are interested to work (constructively, of course) to them you are praised to do something. Wiki rules cannot support apartheid, sorry.--Stefanomencarelli 11:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, my involvement came to a screeching halt when you decided to file the ArbCom case, and I don't intend to spend time on any of that until that case is decided. I'm sure the other editors feel the same. Second, since you've pretty much poisoned the well with most of the regular WP:AIR editors, it makes it kind of hard to approach someone and politely ask for help. Your comments above certainly aren't polite. I've said this before, and I'll say it again...you need to build good working relationships with other editors who can help you. No one wants to help someone who is going to talk abusive to them, or complain all the time, which is exactly what you do. You can threaten all you like to post to the main pages, and you'll be treated just as everyone else is treated: if your text is poorly written, or no supported by refs, it will be removed. If you've taken the time and effort to polish the text so that it reads well, and if you properly cite your material with footnotes, then there will not be any problems. It is your responsibility to make sure your contributions meet standards. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not that i don't appreciate what you said, but even so, allow me to reply.

Today there were the funerals of Enzo Biagi, a freeman as few remains in a world more and more without any respect for freedom (seen as a 'threat for the established order'). The oil price is flying to 100$ and this should led to think more seriously to our absurd world. But let's go:

1-there is someone that is costantly pointed at the 'words' while others are pointed on 'facts'. Since you call my comment 'above' as non-polite, obviously you miss why i could be not friendly with someone that not miss a time to complain in Arbcom every time we discuss in any sense. This is 'polite' and wikilove for you? To me it not looks so. Since i am a volonteer here, not payed (as all the collaborators as well), you cannot pretent i act like all the conformists here have established, and obey to Bzuk or BillCJ every time saying 'yes master, yes master, like you want master'. And surely i wouldn't take EH as 'bright example'. Sorry, the manner in which they acted not displays any reasonable friendly-acting. So it's hard pretend to me to be so kind with gentlemen that not even bothers to explain why they does this and that revert.

2-Another thing that show dramatically well some things:

Take for instance, the first paragraph after the header "Technical description"...the paragraph ends with the sentence "the only real all-around fighter that served in AMI, but this was not without limitation in every task." That's a very subjective statement, and, since it's making a judgement, it really needs a citation so that the reader can understand what the source of that statement is. As it stands right now, however, because it is not cited, it merely looks like opinion on your part, which would be right to remove/revert.

All the G.91R page explains continuosly why this plane was 'limited' and 'mainly successful as recce'. I cannot understand how this thing, considering all the datas and stuff given, can be 'questioned'. Rather than criticize me just try to get a look about the JAS-39 Gripen.

Basically, questioning this fact shows apalling comprension for all the article, because it's a statement well placed inside the meaning of this work.

3-Washing your hands and not bother about to collaborate with me is not surely a 'nice' manner to do. Strangely enough, this is 'justified', rather than be a guilth. So, basically, every thing i do or not do is wrong, while every thing you do or not do is right. With these bases, expecting a costructive dialogue is just funny. You have been 'offensed' by the vanification of F-104S adjustements (because i after done some more contr.). This is the only thing you did in over a month of 'collaboration'. Too easy, my dear, to self justify all times like you. Easy not bothering to collaborate, while the guilth is mine that already lost my time to contribue gratis to this ency.

4-My contributions should be alway quoted here and that. But being serious, there are a lot of pages without any or almost any references. I dont' understand why i should be whipped to post 500 bites. The issue about F-86 data touched the buttom of the sea and dig it too. I cannot cope with someone that not even read online sources with absurd reasons.

5-The continuos accuses, diffamations and so on about me are not liked either. Perhaps the problem is that Wikipedia takes herself too seriously in the last times? Perhaps that be called 'traitor' or 'harmer' is not friendly? Obviously you rate these accusation as 'righful critics'. But not i.

I remember very well that you accused me without any proof to make copyviols, even with funny interpretations of Goebel PD text (that i stated as not mine, the only time i used other texts in all the MB written for the sake of Wiki). I wouldn't have a judge like you in the real world, believe me.

6-The fantastic wikioz world, 'tooooo perfect' to be 'questioned'. But to me and some others, this looks not exactly true. There are a lot of burocrats, hipocrites and trolls, or simply there are a lot of guys that basically fears the others and are ready to 'defend the Revolution' with zealot fanatism. Questioning even the basical celebral activity and even the basical freedom of spreech, questioning even the simply syllogism as crime.

All this is due because, as always in these cases, from French revolution today there are always many 'revolutionary guards' ready to show their 'loyalty' to the 'cause'. So wikipedia prefers executes guys 'out of the chor' instead to admit to have some 'contradictions'. This is the usual manner to act. And i have no love to who call me 'wiki.harmer' just because i show that i 'know' my stuff, not only 'have read it somewhere'. This is why Goebel and many others keeps away from here. Wikipedia, due to the fanatism and or idiocy of some 'collaborators' keeps away many proficient potential contributors because fears the free thinking, even if well referenced and logical.

This is an amusing trial to de-humanizing a thing that can run ONLY with the intelligence and capability of contributors, treated instead as dumb slaves by someone armed with terrible weapons like NNPOV, OR, POV or whetever, always ready to be used against everyone. So when B.Gates will buy Wiki, and he will be not grate to nobody.

In the meanwhile, who really harms wiki (spammers, agenda-politicized guys and so on) can edit freely because they do it with proper reference 'quotes'. But my dear, there is no worse deaf to who not want hears.

I am pretty sure that you or someone else will bother to put this new proof in arbcom evidence. Free to do it, free to look the finger instead the Moon, but i care about freedom to spreech even if this is not aprecied or understood.--Stefanomencarelli 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano, it seems clear that you'd prefer to complain that to work cooperatively with someone. I made clearly, polite, constructive suggestions on what needs to be improved in your articles, specifically referencing. Like it or non, conformist or not, you need to understand that we have set ways of doing things. Referencing material is one of those. Your references need to be in footnote form. In your point number 2, all you do is argue with me, rather than agreeing to comply with Wikipedia's standards. If you're going to make a subjective statment, you need a souce. If you don't have a source, then it's OR. Those are the facts. If you don't like it, don't edit here. You resist and resist complying with our standards, then you whine when your non-standard edits are reverted. I gave you yet another opportunity to put the past behind and work cooperatively with me. Despite all that's been said, you clearly have no interest in being mentored or helped in any way. I've repeated offered help to you, and I'm done doing that. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Commander[edit]

Alan, if you get a chance, can you look at the following pages? (I'm not in a hurry, as I have patience!)

Aero Commander - 2-item DAB page
Aero Commander (aircraft)
Aero Commander (aircraft manufacturer) - Main company page
Aero (U.S. aircraft manufacturer) - company stub
Aero Design and Engineering Company - company stub
Rockwell Aero Commander - redirect to Aero Commander (aircraft)
Aero - DAB page, but almost none of these are listed

I'm not quite sure how best to rearange these. The three company pages should be combined in one article, as they were really just name changes, but under what name? I don't like using names with parentheses, and would prefer to have the aircraft back at Rockwell Aero Commander. My preference would be Rockwell Aero Commander for the plane, and Aero Commander for the company, perhaps with Company or COrp in the title, if one of these was used, or without as a replacement for the current 2-item DAB page. Any thoughts? - BillCJ 16:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember somewhere in the Project standards that mfr names should be what the are currently, or what they last were before they went out of business. It makes sense that Aero Commander is the company name...that's how the FAA registration lists it (see this for example). And, if that be the case, then the planes would be the name plus model number, so for the single engine example I just gave, the article would be Aero Commander 100, or for the base twin it would be Aero Commander 500, or for the Jet Commander, it would be Aero Commander 1121, etc. This link to the registration database gives a good overview of the different models. Anyway, just my thoughts. All the company stubs definitely need to be merged into the one main mfr article, though! AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for checking into this. If you would move Aero Commander (aircraft manufacturer) to Aero Commander over the 2-item DAB page, I'll work on combining the stub pages there in the next day or so. I'll look at the various model numbers, but they seem to vary so much for the Aero Commander (aircraft), I'm not sure anything ~~other than Rockwell Aero Commander~~ would make much sense. We might be able to split the article up into pages for Aero Commander and Rockwell models. I'm not really certain tha the model list in the article is that accurate, but it will take time to rack all this down. Thanks for the page move, and whatever else you have done/can do. (The last line is otherwise known as butt-kissing or sniveling in circles of people with no manners, aka sockpuppets.) - BillCJ 18:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. As for the models, really there are 3 main ones you could start with. The Aero Commander 100 could incorporate the AC 100, 112 and 114, the AC 500 would cover the 500, 680, 720, and the AC 1120 would cover the jets. Individual model numbers would be redirects to the main plane page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. The AC 1120 Jet COmmander series is currently covered by the IAI Westwind page. That page is pretty skimpy right now, but with expansion, it might warrant a split by 2020. (Btw, 2020 is the date Wacked-outZooLaLa finally decides there must be more important things in life then living on Wikipedia doing nothing, and becomes the last user to quit Wikipedia, all the other users having left in 2011 for Veropedia. He then runs for Congress as a pro-Global Warming Democratic, sinking to an even lower level than being a Wiki sockpuppet, and has moved from VA to the Mojave Rainforest for the cooler weather - caused by Global Warming, of course.) - BillCJ 19:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that there is an Aero Commander 100 page (though it's badly in need of work!), your suggestion for Aero Commander (aircraft) to be moved to Aero Commander 500 seems most logical. Assuming no objections occur, I'll try to move it later tonight. - BillCJ 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just been updating the variant list in Aero Commander (aircraft) I have still to add all the 690 variants. Just to say I have no problems with your moves/suggestions - just helping where I can. MilborneOne 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikalliz[edit]

Hi, this user contacted me because she felt harassed. Could you perhaps provide some diffs of edits of hers you feel are problematic? -- John Reaves 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I don't see why this user would feel harrassed, as there's been only a little interaction on this user's talk page. I reverted this edit where the user deleted someone else's legitimate edit to an article talk page, and I followed up with this note on Wikalliz's talk page explaining why the edit was reverted, and why he/she shouldn't remove such material. I also commented here that on this users talk and user page, along with most of their edit summaries, they proclaimed they were doing "grammer" edits, but were consistently mispelling "grammer" (should be "grammar"). (Wikalliz is still mispelling "grammer", despite the note...odd for someone dedicated to cleanup). Also consider this "cleanup". I have no problem with editors removing welcome messages, but it does seem odd.

There has been a bit of speculation that this user is involved with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets#User:Wikzilla, based on the name fitting a pattern used by Wikzilla, and the curious fact that talk page comment removal I mentioned above was targetted at one of the users that Wikzilla typically targets. It struck me odd that this brand new user, on his/her 5th all-time edit, would just happen to make an edit that fits a harrassment pattern. It is not at all unusual for a sock to make a bunch of very minor edits to produce a legit track record. Interestingly, on more than one occassion, the Wikzilla socks have used the "why are people picking on me" approach (diffs are on the sock report). Be that as it may, no action has been taken to pursue investigating this as a suspected sock, and until such a time as more obvious improper edits are made, I don't intend to do so. It is always unfortunately when a legit new user happens along when everyone has the suspicions raised by a trolling puppeteer, and I certainly don't intend that in this case.

Hope that helps, feel free to ask if there's something I haven't answered for you. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource[edit]

Alan, do you, or perhaps any of those watching your page, know someone in Wikisouce who could help another user upload an Indian Government document from the 1950s? Details at User talk:BillCJ#States_Reorganization_Commission. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash[edit]

Alan, could you look at my commnets [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eurocopter_tigre&curid=9856158&diff=169911996&oldid=169820472 here regarding the new 2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash page, and see if you have any advice for User:Eurocopter tigre. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I need some help explaining to User:Eurocopter Tigre what Notability in a crash article means, per her his response here. He's a good editor, but this type response won't help his case if on of the D-nazis finds the crash page. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really hate to disappoint you, and come across as a D-nazi, but I really don't feel that this one is notable. In order to get wider and more formal input, I've put it up for AfD. If it gets kept, I certianly won't have a problem with it, and that will set part of the notability guidelines bar. Sorry if I've disappointed you. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, though it wasn't the response I was looking for. I do always trust your judgement, and that you do what you believe is best in any situation, and that is what I prefer. I certainly questioned the wisdom of creating the article from the beginning, but I've been trying to get Tigre to draw out any proof of notability that exists, which he hasn't been able to do to this point.

This will come as a disappointment to Wikzilla, though, as he thinks we are in lock-step agreement on everything. I'm sure we're just doing this to try to confuse him, but he's to smart to fall for it :) - BillCJ 18:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism-only account[edit]

[[3]]. Have fun! - BillCJ 00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

As you were the one who split this from the main article, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, delete !vote contributed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Princess Pea Face[edit]

Heh, great minds think alike! What do you call these things we wear inside our shoes again? Keep up the good work. --John 22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikzilla would just say we're lap dogs of Bills! AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:John#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikzilla[edit]

Did you see that? Do you have anything to add? It may be time to close it now. --John 01:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aeritalia G.91[edit]

What the dickens has gone on in this article? I thought there was an agreement to "shape" and "refine" edits before submitting a large edit to this article. I have been trying not to touch any articles in contention but adding to the mix is disheartening. Bzuk 02:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, if Ahunt hadn't taken the time to copy edit it, I'd just say revert. Stefano is basically telling everyone to shove it. Patience, I guess, ArbCom will be over soon, and then we can start cleaning up the leftover mess. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Adam did a good job but some more work is still needed. FWIW Bzuk 05:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vero-cruft[edit]

Alan, is Veropedia cruft free? THat would be really nice. I think it must be Wikipedia Week at Gamers Online! - BillCJ 02:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vero is different than what I expected. All the editing takes place here on Wikkpedia. The point is to get the article up to speed here, and then upload it there. The upload tool, they call it a parser, is actually a really cool tool. It analyzes the article for a number of things, including ref tag formats, sentences that are too long, broken links, non-free images, {{fact}} tags, etc. If there are problems like that, you have to go fix them first. Oh, and they prefer not to have much in the way of trivia! Hooray! The project is still really young, and there's a lot of growth to come. I figured that, with my involvement in wp:air, I'd start getting the more "important" air articles up. I'm starting by going though the FA and GA articles that the project has produced, as well as working on the X-planes, for personal reasons. Essentially, think of Vero as a collection of polished, stable versions of Wikipedia's articles. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD[edit]

You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mississauga City Council about bot issues. I don't believe a bot was involved with th article. If you'd like to express your concerns on the article in question, please do so, otherwise, pleas considering moving your comments. thanks Mbisanz 04:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged Mbisanz 04:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commons deletions[edit]

Ironically enough, I messed that one up after lecturing maxim (talk · contribs) about the same thing (see his talk page). I'm usually quite careful and this one just fooled me while I was trying to clean up his mess. The issue is that the cleanup category encourages admins to use the Bad Old Ones Tool which is quite simply awful and in particular does not display en.wiki usage correctly. In any case, I'm happy you picked up my mistake but I always work directly from the images so this is not a mistake I often make. We should probably ask that DumbBot be modified so that it stops creating the cleanup categories with the text linking to Bad Old Ones. I also asked AzaToth to modify Twinkle to do the substitution automatically [4] but I got no answer (and of course I'll forgive him because he probably gets dozens Twinkle feature requests a month...) Pascal.Tesson 05:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP...it was a really easy mistake, one that I probably would have made, as well. Good idea on the bot.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S-61L/N[edit]

Alan, just wanted to say thanks for the recent civil S-61 pics you've added, and that the firefighting pics are great! Between you and Adam (AHunt), the article has really filled out since the two pics I had when I spun it off the SH-3 page. Nice to see one of my Wiki-babies growing up! - BillCJ 06:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Odd that you bring that up, though, as I just uploaded another pic. The S-61 article has enough pics, so I drop it over at the San Bernardino County, California article. Direct link is Image:Sbcsd-040422-03cr.jpg...not too many Sherrif's departments have such a big bird! AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! That is a good one! I think it works best on that page, as both birds are a bit too small in the pic to work well on the type pages. - BillCJ 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the S-61 looks like an S-61R, not a L or N. Though it doesn't have side sponsons, the main gear are in the same location, and it has a nose gear. THe L/Ns have reverse tricycle gear, with the main forward and the tailgear rearward. Also, the rear fuselage is quite different. I've not seen a R that looks quite like that, without the sponsons. I hadn't heard of the R being sold as a civil model in my research. Perhaps that's a modified USAF or Coast Guard HH-3, but I really don't know. - BillCJ 06:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Evergreen has/had operated S-61Rs, as seen here. However, theirs has side sponsons. - BillCJ 06:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SBDSD S-61 was really controversial when they got it, as there were a lot of eyebrows raised regarding why the department needed such a big, expensive ship, and accusations the the Sherrif was empire-building. It is now gone, and the reg no., N308SB is "reserved". AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any references to exactly what model it was? Oh, and shouldn't that have been "Inland Empire-building? ;) - BillCJ 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't, but your question just now prompted me to go look. Found it here. Search for "N308SB". It comes up as CH-3C 63-9691, which I presume means it was an Air Force bird. Currently the FAA reg shows the number as unassigned but reserved, so this listing is a bit outdated. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. CH-3C is a USAF S-61R, but they normally had sponsons, so those were obvioulsy removed for whatever reason. - BillCJ 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have a pic of just this helo (w/o the 212) at home. As there aren't any civie versions on the S-61R page, maybe I'll see if it's good enough to add, if that's ok. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be a problem. I'd like to get a useable pic of the white Evergreen bird on their site too, if someone ever runs across one. - BillCJ 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LA class troll[edit]

Alan, here's one I'm fairly certain is NOT Wikzilla! Look at this diff, particulary his last sentence, and his talk page. He doesn't understand he HAS to have reliable sources, and insists on addign back when the page is unprotected. Help! - BillCJ 07:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Does he IP hop? AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreeLife[edit]

I'm inherently unsympathetic to MLM schemes, degree-mill doctors and snake oil claims, but even I think you're not being fair here. And more importantly, this has come to the attention of a lot of people through the online complaints system. You could do a lot to rescue your reputation in some people's eyes by bending over backwards to be really fair, dig up a few sources other than the documentary, and make the article better. We are not required to be sympathetic to subjects, but we are required to be fair. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 10:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Not sure what you're talking about. My only involvement was some time ago to prevent blatant spam/coi issues from intruding. We are not a marketing branch for Freelife, and Freelife personnel are not supposed to edit the article to make their image look better. I don't budge on such COI and spam issues. "Online complaint systesm"? What are you talking about? "Rescue my reputation"? If my reputation is as someone who will staunchly defend the integrity of this encyclopedia against those who'd use it as a martketing tool, then I'm happy. Fair is presenting all sides of an issue. If you only present the marketer's side of a controversial company with a controversial product, and don't allow the critic's side, when sourced, to be presented, you haven't acheived NPOV. Since I've only made one edit to this article, and that was back in September, I would really appreciate it if you would bring specifics when you come to make complaints, not just generalized comments about needing to be fair and defending my reputation. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to read up on WP:OTRS. You were very rude to someone who did exactly as they'd been told, and he emailed Jimbo, and Jimbo emailed us, and he was not too impressed. If you want to talk about this in detail I'm happy to, email is probably best for various reasons. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Flex-C[edit]

Thanks for the invite

Thanks for the message the other day but to be honest when you have seriously ANAL administators such as cloudnine & ben w bell who as administrators enjoy administering their own points of views on articles about subjects it wains my interest in Wikipedia!

It was a very good website but these sort of people can change the information to their own P.O.V - so leaving information can at times be in fact a waste of time.

Most adminstrators are fair and open minded but people like these put you off!

Regards

Flex-C 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahunt now a troll[edit]

Here. I'm sending you an e-mail about this in a few minutes. - BillCJ 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Stefano is now blocked for a week for that. Oh, and please don't use my old email address...please use the new one I've loaded into the wikipedia system. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and thatnks. I just replied to the last address you e-mailed me from, so if that was the old one, Sorry! - BillCJ 18:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP, I'll still get it, I'm just trying to channel stuff from regular friends to the new one. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on this. I had a feeling that editing the G.91 article would not be easy for us trolls! - Ahunt 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, maybe we could start a new cabal...the Cadre of Rotorheaded Trolls!! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I am automatically a member? Quite an honour - Ahunt 18:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, around here you take the honours where you can get them!! AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone know how to make an infobox for that? - BillCJ 19:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer slapper[edit]

Alan, you feel like slapping a spammer? CHeck out these contributions. I think I've seen this site added and remmoved before, but am not sure. - BillCJ 04:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he stopped last night right after the final warning was given. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems[edit]

Alan, this diff is the last of several in which this user has reverted bot deletions of the same image. I checked his user page and he his 14! Would you mind explaining the problems to him? He seems sincere, but just doesn't understnad the problem. I don't want to risk "biting" him, but communicating with teenages has never been my strong point - even when I WAS a teenager! Thanks. - BillCJ 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helo lift classes ?[edit]

There was a discussion on your talk page last week (on archive 15 now) about what is medium-lift. Born provided this link for gross weight ranges. I can't find anything else on this elsewhere. Seems like Cargo aircraft would be a better place for the classes than the general article helicopter. -Fnlayson 04:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject came up because one helo, I think it was the S-61, but I could be wrong, was described in its article as a "Medium lift", and that struck me as inaccurate, so that set about the search for classes. The reason for the helicopter article is because the designation applies to the helicopter, whether it's carrying cargo or people...it's a way of classifying the "size" of the helicopter. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was thinking in terms transporting cargo. But that applies to all helicopters as you said. I still want to find some other groups' classes. -Fnlayson 05:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the S-92. Frawley describes it as a medium-lift helo, and that fits within Born's source. - BillCJ 05:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the Army page, the CH-53K will be the first US helo over 80 klb and heavy lift. -Fnlayson 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Lucia Airways[edit]

I have begun an article on CIA proprietary St. Lucia Airways. Mark Sublette 06:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 06:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts set up for vandalism attacks[edit]

See: NoPeDa‎ at [5]. FW This looks like Wikzilla again. Bzuk 14:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah...I translated his comment to the ArbCom member's talk page, and found that he was calling him a "moron", for which I issued the civility warning...we'll see what happens next. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Vandalism-only[edit]

User talk:65.199.254.45, Contributions. - BillCJ 16:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he hasn't done it since your warning, but if he does again, let me know. I'll also watch the page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked now AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and Wikzillaspeni$ and 71.247.232.60 Bzuk 07:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler[edit]

I have undeleted. This is so profoundly not a7! It was really not right (per deletion policy) or nice (per common politeness) of you to have deleted this stub. -- Y not? 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to try and review it, and quite honestly, I don't know why it was deleted by me, it wasn't even up for CSD. You are indeed correct, it is clearly notable. There was some OR with some terrible grammar, and the nearest I can thinks is that I meant to roll it back and deleted it by mistake. My apologies. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpspam[edit]

Alan, check out this - his contributions have been removed once already by antoehr editor, but were re-added today. Despite my "connections" to Chattanooga, I've never heard of Chattmedia, hence the users efforts! - BillCJ 17:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TougHHead[edit]

Hello, you might want to check his editing history. It's not a good one. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I've been watching him, and just dropped a warning over on his page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, you might be interested in these comments from the top Wikia sysop/burecrat. I doubt any criticism is menat about your actions, but rather possibly encouragement from the top to extend it? Interesting anyway. - BillCJ 04:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to consider warnings from admins on his page to be "spam." Not encouraging.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 07:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next block will never happen because I got chased out from wikis but nobody will chase me out of this one. Also who cares about my Talk history? FBI? Military? Police? Nobody cares about my history. Rosicrucian is actually turned out to be from Teletraan-1 the Trnasformers Wiki. Please leave this peace loving user alone which is me. I already became famous because of Angela made me world wide famous guy on the web by thinking me as Assaulthead the Guy who Vandalized Wikia and latter died for such behavior.(TougHHead 02:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(ec) Good...I'm glad there won't be another block. Please endeavor to treat others here with respect, and please respect the fact that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and not a social networking site, and all will be well. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TougHHead, you're not getting it. The FBI doesn't care, the CIA doesn't care, but the admins do care. You have been disruptive an uncivil. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think someone's about 10 cylinders short of a V8 engine! - BillCJ 04:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. I'm guessing that this 35 year old is really about 10. I've been watching his comments the last little while. Annoying though relatively innocuous. We'll see how things work out. Oh, BTW, will be away most of the day tomorrow...going down to get my 412 back!! AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd edits[edit]

Alan, I came across this edit, but accorrding to Adam Aircraft's own site, it's in Englewood. THen I found this edit! Of course, Air Methods addresses on their site diffr too. Is this just vandalism, or a turf war of some kind? - BillCJ 05:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this one! - BillCJ 05:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turf war and/or vandalism. The airport it "Centennial", the town is Englewood...I've certainly filled out enough FedEx slips to know!!! AKRadecki^Speaketh 12:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a city or town name appears in a mailing address does not mean that the address is located in that town or city. (Most notable example - addresses for government offices at the Pentagon read "Washington, DC", even though the Pentagon is located across the river in Virginia, not in the District of Columbia). Years and years ago, before much of the south part of the Denver Metro Area was developed, the US Postal Service assigned "Englewood" as the place name to be associated with the ZIP code 80112, even though this area was not part of Englewood or any other city. This area is now very much developed, and surrounding cities have made annexations and have incorporated in the area, including the City of Centennial. Although Centennial Airport is not part of any city, it is essentially surrounded by the City of Centennial. As for the mailing address, although the Postal Service maintains "Englewood" as the "default" place name for ZIP code 80112, it is perfectly acceptable to write "Centennial, CO 80112" in the address (or on a FedEx slip, for that matter). Those who continue to write "Englewood" are either doing so by habit or because they are ignorant of city boundaries. It is simply wrong to attribute the location of the airport to Englewood when it is miles and miles outside of this city. Watkinsian 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if WIkipedia has a guideline on this issue or not. However, what you have given is basically original research. Before posting here, I checked the websites of Adam Air and AIr Methods, and they both assert that they are in Englewood, one in text, not just an address. I live 4 miles from a city limits, and my zipcode is in that city. It's a wide-ranging zip code, and even encompasses areas adjactent to, and maybe even in, another larger city. So this issue is not unique to Englewood/Centennial. I'm not sure what the guidelines recommend as a solution, but when it comes down to it, we usually go with the published info, which in this case is Englewood. What you have rewritten tin the text is Original Reseach, though it might count as common knowledge. Honestly, I don't think it's worht making a fuss about, and I don't see that it needed to be changed in the first palce. However, if the gudilines are silient on the issue, I'll drop it, though AKR may have a differnt opinion here. - BillCJ 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur on the OR. We have to go by references, and the references for each of the companies says "Englewood". This would be like saying that the Mojave airport isn't in Mojave, just because Mojave actually doesn't exist as an official city, therefore doesn't have any city limits. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so since the Department of the Army gives "Washington, DC" as its address, we must use this reference. We must assert that the Pentagon is in the District of Columbia, and not Arlington, Virginia. So it's "original research" to observe that the Potomac River, the boundary between DC and VA, separates the Pentagon from the City of Washington? No, this is different from the Mojave example. Mojave Aiport's "claim" to being "in" Mojave is based on a mailing address. As stated above, Centennial Airport's address can be written either "Englewood, CO" or "Centennial, CO". As far as the Postal Service is concerned, they are interchangeable. So why, if we are basing the information in this article on a mailing address, would we chose the name of a city several miles away instead of the name of the city immediately adjacent? Watkinsian 17:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is original research to "observe" that the Pentagon is in Arlington, and put it an assertion on that basis. However, I have no doubt that there are numerous print and online publications asserting that the Pentagon is located in Airlington. The threshold on WIkipedia is not "facts", but Verifiability and Attribution through Reliable sources. Anyone can claim anything, and users do so quite regulary here. There has to be a standard, and that standard is having reliable sources to verify any claim. As Alan has stated, when dealing with unincorporated areas, as you yourself admit the facilites are in, the practice is to follow the mailing addresses, as even the company websites do. - BillCJ 22:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming anything. How is the "research" involved with going to a website to determine how a company styles its address different from the "research" involved with looking up that same address on an official city map and verifying whether or not that address is in that city? An official city map is a much more reliable source of locational information than the US Postal Service's ZIP code database. The ZIP code 80112 contains addresses that are in incorporated areas as well as unincorporated areas. In either case, it makes no difference - it is perfectly acceptable to write ANY address in the ZIP code 80112 as "Englewood, CO 80112" OR "Centennial, CO 80112". If we blindly accept the company's choice - and it is a choice - to use "Englewood" instead of "Centennial" in its mailing address as the absolute truth regarding its location, we would be attributing the address' location to a place that is actually several miles away. That would be inaccurate and misleading. Watkinsian 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OR because you're doing the determining. We report what the references report. Period. That's how it works around here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akradecki, in using such terms as "edit war" and "vandalism" in your posts to my talk page and in your edit summaries, you are choosing to escalate this into something ugly and something non-collaborative. I haven't thrown such reactionary terms at you. I understand your view of this issue - if a company presents its address a certain way, then this should be reflected in the article. However, if doing so may mislead readers of the article into assuming something that isn't true - that the company is located in a city eight miles away - then it is our job as editors to provide clarification, based on reputable references. Finally, I don't appreciate your use of "our policies" - Wikipedia does not belong to you, or to a "we", but to the entire community of editors, to which I also belong. Watkinsian 16:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it that these articles are only the first in your campaign to clear up the ambiguity of unincorporated areas of counties in the US? THats going to be quite a job if you intend to do it by yourself, one aritlcle at a time. A better way would be to approach a Project (US or individaul states, I' don't know which sub-project my applay here), gain a concensus on the issue, and then you'll have support and help in your quest. But by your apparent focus only on companies in unincorporated areas Arapahoe County which use Englewood as an address, it appears you have some kind of agenda to push, whether that is so or not. By the way, when you revert three differnt editors in order to push you POV (right or wrong), that IS edit warring, and you're very close, if not already over, 3RR on at least a couple of the pages. You've had 3RR warnings before over other issues, so you need to tread lightly here. Remember, there is no wrong version in an edit war. Once the issue is being discussed, it's best to stop the editing, and try to gain a consensus in support of your view. Right now, you don't have a consensus in anyway. - BillCJ 16:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watkinsian, it's rather ironic that you say that this is becoming non-collaborative, as you've had multiple editors try to explain to you how the policies and guidelines apply, and it is you who is insisting, to the point of violating 3RR and becoming disruptive. I use the terms "edit war" and "vandalism" because they accurately describe your behavior. Our WP:CONSENSUS policy says that when one of your edits is reverted, rather than going and editing it back in, you are to go discuss it and try to acheive consensus (and be willing to respect the consensus even if it goes against your personal viewpoint). Instead of doing that, you keep trying to force your view on the rest of the folks here. That's called an "edit war", and if you persist, it is blockable. "Vandalism" is when you intentionally degrade an article. Again, you've been told repeatedly that we work off of published refs. Period. If you insist on adding your own view, despite being told by multiple folks that what you're doing is improper, then you are intentionally degrading the article. When I use the term "our" and "we" it is because these policies and guidelines have been established by a wider consensus, which you are editing contrary to. So, one last time, please stop. What this more and more is looking like is an attempt to push some sort of anti-Englewood POV on to the encyclopedia. Please stop. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akradecki, I've recognized your point of view, but you seem to refuse to consider the arguments I've presented, even though they are worked off the published references of official city maps and the database of the United States Postal Service. As much as you would characterize my behavior as stubbornly "forcing" my view, you are stubbornly forcing your view that my references are not valid. Perhaps you and other editors would like to characterize my edits as a "campaign", POV, or "anti-Englewood" - you're welcome to your opinions. I'm happy to attribute anything to Englewood that rightfully concerns that city. As I stated before, my intentions are simply to provide clarification to articles that may contain misleading information. Watkinsian 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously not getting this. The issue here is two-fold: one, not stopping to discuss when objections to your edits were raised. Two, your analysis of a map is not what is considered a "reliable, published source". You have not pointed to a single published source that supports your position. Our policy on verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." You have been asked to honor this, even though you disagree with it. There are policies I disagree with, but I don't keep adding the material in, I defer to consensus. So should you. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on the ATG Javelin talk page: "You have been told multiple times by multiple editors that reading maps is akin to OR, and yet you seen (sp) to persist in it, in other words, you either don't understand or don't want to accept this. Yes, there is more to the (sp) life than the the FAA (though in some parts of aviation that's not true), but the FAA is a direct reference, in other words, they are saying something that we can report. When you reference a map, you are the one saying something, and that is OR. The map supports your assertion, but it is not a direct source that says what you're saying. That's a critical difference, because we are not a repository of origninal (sp) research or analysis, we essentially parrot what other reliable sources say."

It seems to me that there is a fine line between what is OR and what is not. The source of your assertions have been, in part, company websites or the FAA website.

Your process:

1. You read a mailing address on a company website.

2. The mailing address includes the name of the city "Englewood".

3. You make an assertion, that the mailing address is actually in that city. The mailing address supports your assertion.

4. Through your choice of words (using "in" instead of "near", "adjacent to", etc. or instead of an explanatory phrase "has a postal designation of, but is located in") you edit an article to read that the company is "in Englewood".

The company website is a direct source, and so you can report what it says. Is a company saying it is "in Englewood" when it includes that city's name in its address? No. It is saying that its address is in a ZIP code that the Postal Service has associated the place name "Englewood" with. That is all it is saying, and that is all that you can report. By making an assertion that the location is "in Englewood", you are the one that is saying that. You are adding your analysis.

The process is similar using an FAA "Master Record":

1. You read that the report indicates "Denver" as an "Associated City" of an airport.

2. You make an assertion, that the airport is actually in, or belongs to, to that city.

3. Through your choice of words you edit an article to read that the airport is "Denver's".

Is the FAA report saying that the airport is in Denver? No. It is saying that it is an "associated city" (whatever that means - one can safely assume that it means that the airport serves Denver, or is somewhere near Denver). That is all it is saying, and that is all that you can report. By making an assertion that the airport is "in Denver", you are the one that is saying that. You are adding your analysis.

My process:

1. I'm critical of mailing addresses, because they don't always reflect actual locations.

2. When I read a mailing address, I check it against reliable references. These include the database of the US Postal Service - which "says" which place names are associated with each ZIP code (and therefore, each address). I also refer to official maps produced by government agencies - municipalities, counties, state departments of transportation, etc. I locate the address on the map. There is almost always only one way to interpret where an address is on a map.

3. Here's where I guess I make my assertion. Because I find an address located within (or outside of) the area defined on the map as being within (or outside of) the city, I then assert that the address is in (or out) of the city.

But - the map does "say" that the address is in (or outside) of the city, does it not? A map doesn't organize information the same way that an address or a paragraph of text does, but it still is a repository of information. Just like text, the information provided on a map can be rather unmistakable, but it can also be subject to interpretation.

It seems you are saying that it's OK to take textual information as-is and use it in an article, but because map-based information requires the step of "translating" graphical information into words, it is not OK. This translation supposedly involves "original research".

But what if I read something from a reliable source in a foreign language and want to add it to an English-language Wikipedia article? Must it be published in English first before I can add it to the article, because, by translating the meaning of the foreign source in my mind, I am adding my own analysis?

I understand the intent of the original research requirement - but you seem to be setting the bar rather low for yourself (e.g., accepting mailing addresses or FAA "associations" at face value) but rather high for me (e.g., information in government documents cannot be used if it is presented graphically and not as text).

I simply have trouble understanding why your analysis of what a mailing address is "saying" is not original research, but my analysis of what a map is "saying" is OR. Please enlighten me.

Watkinsian (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try again to explain: we don't analyze and come up with information. We report what other sources say. Is there a website somewhere that says XYZ company is located in Centennial? That's a ref. You analyzing a map is OR. If the ref says that the legal address of a company is in Englewood, that's what we report. That's how it works here, whether you agree with it or not, whether you think it makes sense or not. If it makes you feel any better, I got called on this myself recently, at this edit, and justifiably so. The point is, what do the references actually say? If they say Englewood, then the article says Englewood, and your analysis of a map is irrelevent. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THis is now geting into WP:POINT territory, as in this edit. After all the effort Watk has expended proving that Centennial airport is in neither Englewood nor Centennial, he now finds ONE source stating that it's in Centennial, and makes changes again, thus also continuing to edit war. Rather than continuing to make unilateral, disruptive changes everytime one finds new information, it's best to take it to the article talk page (or in this case here when several articles are being discussed), and DISCUSS the changes first.

Separately, an IP user (by his edit pattern probably User:Xnatedawgx), has changed the cats backs to Centennial. I've reverted them on the basis of Watk's lenghty discourse on each talk page, as I beleive that's the most unambiguaous cat, at least until one for Arapahoe County, Colorado is created.

Cruft attacks[edit]

Alan (or a watching admin), would you consider semi-protecting Special Air Service for a week or two? It's been attacked by crufters several times a day for the last several days. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Copyright Tags[edit]

I have noticed that you reverted a copyright tag http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AP-51D_Tika_IV_361st_fg.jpg&diff=171715823&oldid=171702303 This image has been directly uploaded from the website WWII in Color and unless specified, this image does not have a copyright status and therefore can not be used on Wikipedia unless another reliable source and be produced. This information can be found on the FAQ for WWII in Color

Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners. This does not mean that all images on this site are in the public domain. The majority of the images, unfortunately, have an unknown copyright status and therefore it is recommended that you do not distribute or copy them for any commercial purposes unless they are specifically stated to be in the public domain (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions).
Most of the images in the gallery are products of government works and therefore are required to be in the public domain by copyright law. However, some of the images were photographed by private individuals, media or other government entities (such as the United Kingdom) that do not fall under public domain law.

-TabooTikiGod 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on Image challenges[edit]

HELP, The following images have all been challenged:

Image copyright problem with Image:P-51D Tika IV 361st fg.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:P-63 Kingcobras.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:P-59 Airacomet.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:B 26.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:B-25 refuelling.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:P-39N.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:B-25s in New Guinea.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:B 24 in raf service 23 03 05.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Capturedfw190 red.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Fw 190A starting up.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Fw 190As in flight.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Me 262 Abandoned.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Junkers 88.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Junkers 88.1.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Junkers 88k2.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:Stirling of 7 sqn.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Spitfire V 316.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Mosquito Fighter-bomber.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:DH98 Mosquito bomber.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:Hawker Typhoon.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:Beaufighter252sqn.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:Short Shetland.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Fairey Barracuda.1.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:Westland Whirlwind prototype.jpg

All of these images will be removed by TabooTikiGod who has made the sweeping challenges. I believe they can all fall under

This work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain.

This is because it is one of the following:

It is a photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957; or
It was published prior to 1974; or
It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created prior to 1974.

HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply)
More information.

See also Copyright and Crown copyright artistic works.

or {USAF banner removed to remove this page from related cat} or other appropriate PD tags. Can you help! Bzuk 23:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

<div class="metadata divbox divbox-red" title="Notice: Please see the following talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Help_needed_on_Image_challenges
for all discussions referencing this matter in order to consolidate the topic on one article page.

" >

Notice: Please see the following talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Help_needed_on_Image_challenges
for all discussions referencing this matter in order to consolidate the topic on one article page.

-TabooTikiGod —Preceding comment was added at 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I'd really like to discuss this here. What do you think? --Born2flie (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Born, you are more than welcome to talk to me about this here...TTG doesn't control what gets talked about where. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we talked. I feel better about the whole thing now! --Born2flie (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LCAC[edit]

Alan, I just created a rough article for the USN's LCAC, which to this point all links were pointed toward a short general section in the Landing craft article. If you get a chance, could you give a quick copy-edit? Thanks. - -- BillCJ (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review[edit]

F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Email[edit]

Alan, did you get an email from me a couple days ago? --Born2flie (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go check...I really don't check email that frequently, so pinging me here when you send me something is a good thing. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually email. So, mark this one on the calendar. --Born2flie (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born, I just checked...no email from you, just one from BillCJ. Did you send it through the wikipedia email system, or directly? I've changed email addresses fairly recently. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent through Wikipedia. I don't have your actual email. I was aware that you had changed, which is why I mentioned it here, thinking that you might check the old one less frequently than before. --Born2flie (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Band not noteable'[edit]

Why is Nega 'not noteable' and honestly, what does it matter anyway? Just because a band isn't Dir en grey or Gazette doesn't mean that they don't diserve their own little page. I'm not trying to be rude but I just don't understand why you're deleting my page...

Please read WP:MUSIC. We have notability standards, as this is not a guide but an encyclopedia. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I suppose I'll have to repost the topic once I find an article on them getting a song on a music chart. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UchihaNoChikara (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Echizen-Hanandō Station[edit]

Thank you for your attention to my db-move request on Echizen-Hanandō Station. My request is move of Echizen-Hanando Station (without macron) to Echizen-Hanandō Station (with macron). This is a non-disputable move per WP:MJ. Originally the former was a redirect to the latter but I deleted it when I pasted db-move. If it was inappropriate, I apologize. --Sushiya (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proto SLG[edit]

Though I provided 3 reasons the article shouldn't have been deleted (including a notability rationale), it was nonetheless deleted by you without a single reason mentioned or even speedy deletion code asserted. I would respectfully ask you to take a second look at my rationales, namely #1 (that there are plenty of other paintball marker articles in wikipedia that have not been deleted), and #3 (that the unique internal mechanics of the Proto SLG do not exist in any other marker being sold on the market today). Many other paintball marker articles have been up for AfD, and all of them have survived; I've never seen a paintball marker article speedily deleted in this manner without so much as even a rationale given by the admin. Again, I ask that you look over my defenses again, or at the very least, AfD it so that it can be discussed. Thanks. --Donutmonger (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a politely written request...that's rare these days, unfortunately. It was nommed for lack of notability, and that's the reason I deleted, as I saw no assertion of notability in the article. However, I would be willing to reconsider if there was some demonstration of actual notability that showed that this product warrants an encyclopedia article (remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a hobby equipment guide), and by demonstration I mean references to actual reliable sources external of the manufacturer's web site that attest to the notability. As for your rationales, I actually did read them. #1 is a non-starter, for why, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for number 3, just because something is unique does not necessarily mean that it rises to the level of encyclopedic notability. For our purposes, that is demonstrated by referring to external sources. Let me know, and if there are reasonable sources that can be used as citations (ie, a review in a publication would be most helpful), as I said, I'd be willing to reconsider. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Right now, reviews and citeable articles on it are rare as it has been on the market for less than a month. I will look around for something and get back to you. Is there a time limit after which the article is not recoverable? --Donutmonger (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no time limit. Just drop me a line when you're ready. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty after doing some intense searching, I found coverage of the SLG in sources that I believe satisfy the notability guidelines. All of them are from WARPIG, an independent source that, as one of the oldest paintball websites around, is considered extremely reliable.

WARPIG's Coverage of the 2007 Paintball World Cup: the 17th paragraph discusses the SLG as "the most affordable [Proto/Dye] has ever produced."
WARPIG's photo gallery from the event shows several pictures of the SLG and makes note of its "low price tag."
WARPIG's 5-minute video interview with the SLG's designer discusses the marker in-depth. I believe this satisfies the "significant coverage" requirement. Though it is an interview with a biased source (the manufacturer), it is conducted by Bill Mills, WARPIG's Technical Editor, an independent source [6].

Hopefully these sources should certify the SLG article as notable enough to exist. Please take a look at these and let me know what you think. Thanks! --Donutmonger (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will work on it and get back to you. Cheers, --Donutmonger (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okie doke, ready to go live. Take a look - I plugged in the sources and referenced them. Hopefully, it should be up to snuff. --Donutmonger (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article "Teerasin Dangda" deletion[edit]

Hey,

Just wondering why you deleted Teerasin Dangda's article. It's nothing major, I guess, but I believe that Dangda satisfies WP:NOTE, and in moving to Manchester City F.C., his career is only going to become more notable. The arguments for and against his notability could probably be well-summed in studying the deletion vote for a Cypriot semi-pro international footballer - note the overwhelming keep argument, in addition to the good arguments both for and against. Please don't take this as a rant in any way, I simply am curious to why the page was deleted, especially with little-to-no time period for Wikipedians to debate the deletion and thus to save the page. If I have the chance, I would like to argue in favour of keeping his article, but under the circumstances, presently I am simply looking to understand why the article was deleted - I am quite aware that I can be and am wrong on some issues. Falastur2 (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because the article had no content. It was an infobox and absolutely no text. If you want to write an actual article that satisfies our notability and verifiability requirements, I have no objection, but this one, without even a line of text, doesn't even qualify as a stub. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies, I've just found the reason behind my confusion - someone changed the link which I followed (from Suree Sukha) from "Teerasil Dangda" to "Teerasin Dangda" (note the change in spelling in the forename). Subsequently, I went to the wrong page, finding it had been deleted, but since I wasn't familiar with the name, I assumed the two pages were one and the same. Someone has since corrected the link, which informed me of my error. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for the swift reply all the same. Falastur2 (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mooner72[edit]

Alan or a watching admin, User:Mooner72 is adding links to aircraft aritles which apparently link to a site he runs. He has been asked to stop by several users, but continues to add the links. - BillCJ (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government Executive Magazine[edit]

Government Executive's is a magazine for leaders in the federal goverment and it is an institution that many of them look to for guidance. These people also read Forbes, Fortune and BusinessWeek magazines all of which have listed in Wikipedia. Why is it that you've deleted my page and have not deleted those or IBM, McDonalds or any other industry pages. The publication Governing has a listing as well, why hasn't their page been removed?

Is it possible to rewrite the article for posting? Please reply on my talk page. 38.118.42.194 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the note I left on your actual user page...the article was deleted because it was spam and your creation of it was a conflict-of-interest. Oh, and before you add information to talk pages, please actually read the instructions...new material goes at the bottom. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion and Hangon[edit]

I put the hangon template on Up His Nose and respectfully left everything there.

It should remain there at least for review. The person who put the speedy deletion tag on the page had this to say about it.

Please respect the hangon tag and put it back. -- Carol 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point of a hangon tag. It is to provide the admin who's considering the CSD with any additional mitigating information. I read the tag, and you failed to address why this was notable. In addition, your recreation of the material was inappropriate. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD:R3[edit]

Hello Akradecki, Regarding Katsina, the problem isn't the Q, as we have Kastina, but rather the reversing of the t and s. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the wrong one. A comedy of errors :-) Tewfik^Talk 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete any, AFAIK. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I've fulfilled my prophecy then. The redirect that should be deleted would be Katsina Junction. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enforced break[edit]

See this and previous edits? Intersting. - BillCJ (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you need it....[edit]

I just wanted to stop by and leave you a chocolate chip cookie and a glass of milk, both of which you deserve after all you've put up with. You showed the patience of a saint, and I was really impressed with how you handled such mind-boggling...whatever that was.

Thanks again, and enjoy! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 05:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...thanks so much...what an encouragement! AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of ZEDO[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, ZEDO, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZEDO. Thank you. 69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, are you sure you have the right person? I haven't made any edits to the article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviastar.org[edit]

I have questions regarding the aviastar.org (formerly avia.russian.ee, among others). The purpose of his site, does it meet the "fair use" criteria, similar to what was cited by the webmaster of ww2incolor.org? Specifically, in being able to cite so much of copyrighted works without being copyright violation. --Born2flie (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looks to me like it is one massive copyright violation, and that he simply doesn't respect copyright, and posts whatever pictures he wants. His website is in Estonia, and while I'm sure that country recognizes international copyright, enforcing it in such a situation is nigh-on impossible. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email link still doesn't work for me, because this was what I was going to bring up. Anyways, according to WP:IUP, WP:EL, we might want to look at how much of this site is being used for reference and image source (if any) and try to extricate the Aviation Project (WP:AIR and RTF, in particular) from any issues this might cause. P.S. (username)(at)"Yeehaw"(dot)com --Born2flie (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually emailed the creator a few months back, and he seemed unaware of any copyright restrictions (perhaps not even able to comprehend them, for whatever resons). As to the text, he generally has several sections, esch verbatim from a listed source. I actually have a few of the print sources, so I usually cite from them, but "lift" the text from his site to my sandboxes, where I then rewrite it before posting anything to the mainspace. In fact, I bought 3 or 4 of the books he uses for myself, and they have all been useful to nme, both personally as a reader, and on WIkipedia as a contributor. I have also downloaded several of his pics to uses in articlesbut only after verifying the copyright and sourcing elsewhere, such as in my books or on another site, and claiming fair-use for rare pics copyrighted by the aircraft company, such as in Bell 400. I think we can use his content if these restrictions are followed, being sure to credit the original sources. As I understnad it, use the text verbatime is not a copyvio per se as he credits ALL the text he uses, but definitley plagirism to some degree. THe pics have no sources, so that's a different issue. We probaly ought to ask a Foundation legal member to find out if we should list his site or not, as I don't know. - BillCJ (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I noticed the book mentions a few weeks ago and have been wondering if the text was copied or rewritten. Some things like variant lists don't look like book quality to me. Maybe it's just taken out of context. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The variant lists are usually taken from Jane's (either an All the World's Aircraft yearbook or some other product). --Born2flie (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry[edit]

Sorry to see your comments on AN about administrator abuse and seeing that you feel you have been abused as an admin. This is bad. Sorry you have been abused.

Some (not all) of the proposed abuse criteria is clearly bad. If you were in a dispute over whether some rare frog was in the -- genus or -- genus, as an admin it's clearly wrong to say "I don't care if you have reliable sources about -- genus, I disagree and I am going to block you". This is abuse!

Another abuse would be "I block you and block you user talk page so you can't request a formal unblock". I learned that on AN today. There is an unblock board where neutral admin are suppose to review decisions. The blocking admin should not prevent this. They should also not visit that board and decide on the appeal of their own actions.

I don't think you'll do the above!

Sorry again to see that others have abused you. Uetz (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Wikiwings
		Alan, this is one of those reasons why I will NEVER be an admin on WP (I've done some background reading). Considering that tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day, I'm thankful that you are one of those willing to take the bullet for the rest of the community. You do it well and I applaud your efforts. Citation: For unending vigilance and almost inexhaustible patience in dealing with sockpuppets, trolls, vandals, and all the rest of the fun and excitement that goes with being an Admin on Wikipedia. I salute you, sir! --Born2flie (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tbanks, guys, that's really appreciated! AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tom13014[edit]

Alan (or watching admin), User:Tom13014 is again adding copyrighted text and pictures to the Bruce Golding article, per this diff, a copyvio of this profile, per notice at bottom of the site's main page. - BillCJ (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email alert[edit]

Alan, you have mail at fxr! - BillCJ (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: USS Granite City (1863)[edit]

Well, I was not familiar with that aspect of the US copyright law. Thank you for explaining that to me. I had only good intentions :-) Regards User Doe_☻T^☼C 02:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell 533[edit]

Alan, as the original editor of the mainspace article, I'd like to invite your comments on mine and Jeff's revision in my sandbox article. Bill and Bzuk, if you see this note, please drop in and share your thoughts, also. --Born2flie (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock alert[edit]

Alan, User:64.58.144.10 appears to be a sockpuppet of banned User:TougHHead, just to let you know to be on alert. - BillCJ (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sending out the Bat signal again[edit]

Alan, can you look at the following [7] wherein a new editor is challenging an experienced editor over an AfD request. The article in question may actually be noteworthy but the sharp dialogue that was engendered by the same editor earlier in the Talk:Neta Snook article and later on talk pages, sent up some "red flags." BTW, the article in question is actually a candidate for AfD because it appears to be a copy from a website.

I did have an occasion to question the newbie editor's judgment on an issue of pushing a Christian agenda/focus into an article on Amelia Earhart's flight instructor. His switching to a "straw man" argument when questioned and then slinging accusations puzzled me until I started to look at some of his edits. This article on Haley Industries struck me as odd and not coached in his "voice."

His edit: " The Light Alloys Limited foundry was created in 1952 as part of the Canadian government's decision to support the design and manufacture of a Canadian supersonic fighter aircraft, the CF-105 Arrow. The foundry was located close to Dominion Magnesium, a producer of high purity primary magnesium. In 1959 the government, for a number of reasons, halted the Arrow project and scrapped the five prototype aircraft already manufactured."

The Magellan Aerospace website: " Haley Industries Limited, formerly known as Light Alloys Limited, was constructed on the current site by the Canadian government in 1952. The foundry was part of the Canadian government's decision to support the design and manufacture of a Canadian supersonic fighter aircraft, the AVRO Arrow. The foundry was located close to Dominion Magnesium, a producer of high purity primary magnesium. In 1959 the government, for a number of reasons, halted the Arrow project and scrapped the five prototype aircraft already manufactured."

With the number of spellos and grammar errors in his other edits, this well-structured and precisely written passage stood out. However, in “photocopying” the passage, he has already made two errors in presupposing the foundry was started in 1952, which it wasn’t and that the Canadian government created the firm in 1952 which they did not.

Like you, I prefer to leave “sleeping dogs lie” but his stance on a challenge to his article falls into the “my lady doth protest too much” defence. FWIW I will also pass this on to another admin for comment. Bzuk (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have another "fan"[edit]

Alan, I thought this diff was a bit odd, but then I checked his user contributions from July. My warning seems odd because he never edited the Su-35 page, nor did the two users I reverted there, User:Gxe65 and User:Historian info, have any open contact with this guy. Given the overlapping contributions to similar pages by User:Peter johnson4 and User:Historian info, it might be interesting if we could get a checkuser run on these 3. Thanks for whatever you can do. And thanks for blocking User:TougHHead's latest sock. I guess you should have been a little clearer when you told Tough to get a new hobby, huh? He just ain't that bright! :) - BillCJ (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC) - BillCJ (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom[edit]

I have made this comment to the co-ordinator of the mediation cabal [8] in the hope that he may pesuade you to reconsider your comments. Please consider that I agreed to process before the Arbcom was commenced. Aatomic1 (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also know that you asked for an outside admin's input. Interesting that now that it's been given, you're still trying to make a case. That tells me you weren't really interested in accepting the input, unless it went your way. For what it's worth, I'm not putting primary stock in the mediation. I am, however, putting a lot of stock in the ArbCom decision, which clearly says that anyone, regarless of whether they were involved in the original case or not, edit wars, then a probation ban is appropriate. You edit warred, you were put on probation. Since you can't edit Troubles-related articles, may I suggest that your spend a little time reading WP:CONSENSUS? AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there is a reason why the ArbCom decision included the phrase by any uninvolved administrator. Alison is an involved party (as is Sir Fozzie). While she has been specificly excluded for imposing the sanction of probation, you, as an uninvolved administrator are not. If you think it is fair (and for that matter, even if you don't), you are perfectly at liberty to put me on probation; she is not. If you read the Arbcom decisions you will note that probation is a very mild sanction and I am infact still entitled to edit Troubles-related articles. I have followed your advice and absorbed WP:CONSENSUS; if you could indicate where my actions have transgressed this policy I should be grateful if you would let me know. I would finally ask you to condsider these changes to a supposedly clear decision. Aatomic1 16:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to short you of my time and attention, but I'm way behind on a project, so won't be on-wiki much today, but real quickly, let me make a couple of comments: first, your attitude here is much appreciated. Second, what I was referring to in WP:CONSENSUS is the singularity of the cycle of be bold > revert > discuss. I wish everyone would discipline themselves to work by this process, and I'm by no means singling you out. Basically, though, it's the opposite of an edit war, and consists of a controversial section is adding by someone acting in good faith and being bold, that material gets reverted, whether in view of policy or for whatever reason, then the issue needs to be taken to the talk page rather than re-adding it. In a general sense, what I see happen too often, is that an editor will re-add the material and simultaneously give a justification at the talk page, and when it's reverted again, he/she'll keep revering back to their talk page justification. That's not how the talk page process is supposed to work. The way it's supposed to work is that after the first reversion, the editor should then post a proposal of the text, and justification in terms of policy and guidelines why this is appropriate to add, thereby giving the disagreeing editors a chance to consider it and rebutt, preferrably rebutt in terms of policy and guidelines as well. It's a process that takes time and discussion, meaning that the editors involved need to exercise patience and respect, two qualities that are priceless for quality editing around here. It's a process very much akin to diplomacy. There's a few very controversial articles that I've been involved in mediating disputes in, and when the other editors involved finally get themselves into this process, and commit to working through it, the resulting product is a genuinely encyclopedic article that covers all points of view. Anyway, didn't mean to ramble, just wanted to share these thoughts. Ironically, the same concepts of patience, respect and willingness to compromise are not just needed in regards to controversial articles, if they could have been exercised by the parties involved with the actual disputes, we wouldn't have to be writing articles about the Troubles. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Probs- always willing to indulge a buffoon. Aatomic1 16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rr[edit]

Hi Akradecki:

With all due respect, I disagree with your opinion that I violated WP:3RR. If you look at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions you will see it clearly states that "reverts to remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) [aren't considered reverts]." If you look closely at the edit history you will see that the "reverts" changed per the source that was given.

Additionaly, the editor that I was in an edit war with has a habit of "contributing" to Wikipedia by going to bios of living people that are in trouble with the law, and inserting without sources that "they are of the Jewish faith" (he recently switched and began doing it to non-criminals, but that was after I pointed out his dubious editing to him). Here are two examples: this, this. You might want to apply WP:IGNORE when dealing with such an editor.

But whether I am right or wrong, I will accept your statement, as long as I am not told by another administrater that I was correct.

All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. If you look closely you will realize that the first three reverts did not revert sourced material. This was the source that he was using for the subject's jewishness. Nothing in that source comes close to anything related to the subject's jewishness. He successfully tricked you into thinking that I was removing sourced material sans discussion. I told him 3 times that the "source" did not source the subject and he chose to ignore it. Instead, he started a "discussion" about how he is inserting sourced material. The Larry King source did not show up until the end.

In any case, let's WP:IGNORE the rules for a second. Look at my contributory history. Do you see any sort of agenda pushing? Now look at his. Let's not kid ourselves, do you really think that he is trying to expand world knowledge by inserting "jew" all over the place? Or is it possible that he has some sort of agenda. Looking at your contributory history I see that you are a bright guy. You should discern what is really going on here and realize that a situation like this calls for WP:IGNORE.

All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Generation Aircraft[edit]

You took the lazy way out. Do you always hide behind "it's an IP" or it's a "sockpuppet" so I am going to delete, lock and ban? Why don;t you first take aim before you shoot. Perhaps you may hit your target instead of your foot. As always, good job Kneejerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.10.6 (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lock and ban? Not at all, and I'm not hiding behind anything. Your edit war was simply out of line. If you are as right as you claim, then discuss it like an intellectual and convince everyone else. I find it rather humourous that you call it the "lazy way out". Actually, the lazy way is what you do...continually deleting material, rather than taking the time and effort to make a good case for your edits. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would direct you to the WP:CONSENSUS page. It seems that I am the only one trying to discuss it. This subject has been an issue on that entry for weeks now. December 7th is not that far away. I have marked it on my calendar. If there is no movement or discussion by then I will revert it again using the same argument as before.141.157.253.78 (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd: t5he IP didn't make any edits on the 4th gen article. However, he did make edits to the Typhoon page. Wikzilla, you're not capable of fooling anyone except yourself. Please grow up. - BillCJ (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Everything gets discussed here except what you do. You deleted an article that I wrote because it had been tagged for deletion. According to the instructions there, a 'hangon' tag means that there will be discussion. You don't discuss things or read what the deletion tags say or care what the person who made the original deletion suggestion had to say?

I actually have been following the featured list stuff somewhat and was interested in starting with a small list. Do you follow the discussion of what makes a good list and what doesn't?

Do you know who is able to put holds on pages?

Thank you for your time and consideration. -- Carol 07:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, first, please take the attitude down a notch. You are welcome to discuss my activities here...heck, everyone else does. Second, when I'm working CSD, I may delete dozens of articles, especially when there's a backup. It doesn't do either of us any good for you to come here and say I deleted an article and not tell me which one. Third, you obviously haven't read the text of {{hangon}}...nowhere in the tag does it say that there will be a discussion, on the contrary, it says "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon." When I come across a CSD-tagged article that includes a hangon tag, I always read the hangon explanation. However, if the explanation doesn't address why, per policy and guideline, the article should be kept, it is pretty meaningless. Fourth, lists are just as subject to our notability and other guidelines as regular articles, but again, since you didn't bother to tell me which one you're complaining about, I can't address the specifics. Finally, any deletion by an admin is not final. You are most welcome to bring it to Deletion Review, but if you do, be prepared to describe in detail how the article which was deleted meets our guidelines and policies, because it's primarily on those merits that article deletions are overturned. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to ask you personally to hold off on deleting a specific page? -- Carol 21:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

Not really, because if it was tagged for CSD, any number of admins might delete it. The best way to get a tagged page kept is to provide a clear claim to WP:NOTABILITY in the article, and make sure that you have external sources that meet WP:RS and WP:V. You still haven't told me what article we're talking about. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that was deleted twice by you even though the person who tagged it for deletion helped to write it the second time. Beyond that, if you are thoughtful about your deletions, what else is there to know? -- Carol 03:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

One more thing, I was thinking about my attitude which you questioned earlier in this discussion. Is it that you want to perceive that my attitude is not so good about having a single article deleted twice by the same person or that I should have a bad attitude about it or were my questions actually that personal and accusatory? I am new here so my attitude is 'how can people who are supposed to be acting responsibly just do things like that' and my questions were asked as a new person trying to determine that. I am pretty sure that this is an appropriate attitude. -- Carol 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hey Akradecki,

Thanks for the revert. :)

Manticore ^{Talk | Contributions} 14:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV[edit]

Thanks for your help - sorry I couldn't remember which page was the right one for vandalism. Kelpin (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too nice[edit]

Re: User_talk:Brewcrewer#3RR_warning, I think you are too nice. An experienced editor ought to know better. I'll block that user the next time he breaks WP:3R. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Wow...that's a comment I don't get too often. There's a bunch of trolls out there who think my actions are way too harsh. Go figure.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porão Guampa F.C[edit]

I transwikied this to pt:Porão Guampa F.C where it was also speedied for non-natability. Andreas ^(T) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers[edit]

Akradeki! Please undelete the page I was working on the Frontiers orginisation. You said it should be speedily deleted it, and I put the {{hangon}} code, which was not respected. The Frontiers article, about an originization with work in more than 40 countries IS notable. If it's not I'll give you a list of tons of such articles on wikipedia for you to delete! Please undelete it, otherwise I will go through the undelete review.--Alfredie (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I read the {{hangon}} tag, and your argument did not address anything specific of how the article met our WP:NOTABILITY criteria. You are mistaken if you think that such a tag provides an automatic stay of deletion. There's dozens upon dozens of Christian missions organizations that work in mulitple countries, and that fact alone does not make one notable, as we define the term. You are welcome always to go to DRV, of course, but unless you come back with actual evidence of notability that meets our requirements, I won't be undeleting it myself. Oh, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't cut it around here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DownER Periscope![edit]

Alan, have you seen this latest revert? What can be done here? He has "spoken"! - BillCJ (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism only account, IP appears to be static, so blocked for 1 month. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! - BillCJ (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TougHHead / Wikzilla[edit]

Between Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TougHHead and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikzilla, it looks to me like these might be the same person. If so, would it be in our interests to merge the categories, do you think? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser? Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 04:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THe Checkuser would be good, but I don't think they are the same person. Wikzilla's probably smarter than TougHHead (Can I say that, or is it another personal attack?), as looking at their speparate edits on the F-22 Raptor page will show. - BillCJ (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) With all due respect, I doubt they're the same. TougHHead's edits, both in content, style and edit summaries with the work of a young kid, probably about 13. Wikzilla, despite his negatives, actually is a fairly sophisitcated editor, with a good knowledge of his subjects, though with a penchant for believing his views are the only accurate ones. In fact, it was too bad that he couldn't bring himself to edit more collegially and cooperatively, as he could have potentially had some valuable material to contribute. He is clearly an adult (although quite immature in his humor and his harrassments). TougHHead could never have pulled some of the stunts 'Zilla pulled. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good thing I asked, then. Thanks for taking a look. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be shocked if TougHHead were 13. I would guess around 10. But, yes, I doubt they are the same, although there is a possibility Wikzilla is TougHHead and acts in such a way on purpose to be a troll. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm actually beginning to think "Wikzilla" may be two or three people, as he seems to use various styles at different times. Could be roomamte or college buddies. Or, he could just be sophisticated as Alan said. - BillCJ (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more a matter of his mood or how much he has imbibed. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TougHHead is... not subtle. Not in the least. In his initial Wikia incidents, he expected us to believe that the prior foul-mouthed accounts of his that we blocked were his "older brother" AssaultHead who had been subsequently executed by the state for mass murder. So that would be why he goes on and on about AssaultHead here on Wikipedia when most Wikipedians probably don't even know of the Wikia incident. He occasionally thinks he's being clever, but he always tips his hand in about the most clumsy way possible. Very definitely suspect he's rather young, and wouldn't surmise he's Wikzilla at all. He's just some kid obsessed with tanks, jets, and Transformers.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 00:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, it's been a while since we discussed this, but as you seemed pretty familiar with these users, I was wondering if you might have any input on User talk:Luna Santin#Downtrip / Wikzilla. Somebody was asking me if I thought this might be a sockpuppet; they seem similar enough that it might be a consideration, but I thought I should get a few more eyes on it for a balance opinion. Any thoughts would be appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. See below. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a sock notice on Downtrip's talk page twice. He removed it here, calling it "grafitti" - I'm not certain, but I think Wikzilla has used the same term. Still seems suspicious. How do we get the ball rolloing on having this account check-usered? - BillCJ (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be Fred Adams[edit]

I think our banned friend User:Fredadams is back and editing Desiree Horton again as an anonymous IP editor from Long Beach. There's a similarity in tone, style, and focus that causes me to suspect this but I have no way to prove it and am unsure how to proceed. Thoughts? - Dravecky (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodyn links to Helicopter article[edit]

Alan, from newest to oldest:

Here are the diffs for every time the aerodyndesign website has been added and added back into the Helicopter article. Wondering if you could do a CheckUser on them and see what the probability is. 4 different IP addresses with a close enough similarity between pairs to suggest a relationship. Not to mention our previous discussion of suspected conflict of interest on the WP:ROTOR talk page. If there is a relationship, how do you suggest I approach the subject of conflict of interest with an editor? Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Born, I don't have checkuser tools, User:John might. I've just dropped a note about why the links are removed on AeroDesign's talk page. I noticed he just joined the task force, as well. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mentioned that AeroEngineer2008 was a newly registered editor on the WP:Rotor talk page. I was also incorrect, because I had faulty data searching for the diffs. 4 different IPs and one registered user. Only two edits are made by the same IP. I'm going to do a Geobytes search by IP address and see if they come up similar. Considering school vs. dorm vs. new job vs. new home, that isn't a stretch for 4 different IPs, but just want to check for myself. --Born2flie (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if the ISP assigns the IPs dynamically, as 'zilla's does, then the possibilities are even greater. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All 4 IP addresses come up on Whois as direct assigned (static) addresses for Comcast in PA. Close enough to be one user. Gonna run Geobytes to see if the same general location in PA comes up. --Born2flie (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I already found what I needed. Sending you something in your email. --Born2flie (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of admins[edit]

Hi Akradecki. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AeroEngineer2008[edit]

I am providing Engineers with a free tool for calculating rotor and propeller performance. I am not selling anything or making profit. I have had people thank me for making this tool available, and I want others to be able to use it. I don't understand how you can delete my link every time, when you leave up that patent link which is completely un useful for anyone researching helicopters, and in my opinion a self promotion for that idea. There is a million patents that are more relevant, just go to Google patents and type helicopter, or rotor. I'm going to put this link up again, because it is useful for others. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeroEngineer2008 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, he uses Google analytics on his webpage, which wouldn't necessarily care about ranking, just tracking how much traffic is directed his way from these links. Incidentally, he is now linking to his site in every correspondence he has regarding this subject. I think he figures that will be a way to get around the COI for self-promotion. --Born2flie (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I am suprised by the amount of trouble I am causing, and did not know that depths in which you guys go to keep the articles clean. The tool is there for people to use, if this is a problem, or some sort of COI, then so be it.

by the way, I only posted the link so you knew what the hell I was talking about, I have no idea how this gets around the COI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeroEngineer2008 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedhawk[edit]

I'm irritated. I've attempted to modify this page twice today - to add a simple photo. Both times the change was undone by an overzealous sysop/admin, you being one. The picture I added was taken using company funds, and is only to be used for educational on non-commercial purposes - with the company blessing - which I indicated. The photo that has been up on the page for the last six months was taken by someone without company authorization, on private premises, was not been approved by the company for distribution, and yet it is ok.

Obviously, I've missed the secret incantation that makes you leave a change alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfarf (talk • contribs) 18:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First, if you're adding an image, just add the image, not a second infobox. Second, we don't accept images that have educational/non-commercial purposes limitations; such images will be deleted. Sorry if you think we're being over zealeous, but them's the rules, and we have to follow them. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One point I'd like to make as the person who added the current image: I did so under fair-use rules, as I could find no PD or otherwise-usable pics available of the actual aircraft. The image is from a website which claims the pic is Piasecki-copyrighted. If Piasecki's legal department wishes to contest the use of the image, there are forms/links by which the company may request the image be removed, and the Wikipedia Foundation will ensure that it is removed. Second, the company my wish to contact the website from which I retrieved the image, and ask them to correct the sourcing on the image, or remove it from their site. Third, there are licenses by which Piasecki can provide images for use here, and as a small company, I think it would be worht it it terms of PR for the company to have quality images of this aircraft posted here. The alternative is the grainy, doctored B/W pic that is used on some other sites, which is certianly not flattering to the aircraft or the company. - BillCJ (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bill. Arfarf was trying to upload a second image, a rather nice in-flight one, not under a fair use rationale, but with a educational use/noncommercial use only restriction, which by the rules isn't permited. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New photos have been added. A permission was sent to permissions-en, as suggested on the photo pages. Arfarf (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User problems[edit]

Alan, I have checked Wikipedia:List of administrators/G-O for user:JetLover but I do not see his name on the list. Can you please check hi comment here and following? He seems to act like he's an admin, but I find no evidence tht he is one. Given that my edit summary had nothing to do with him, his interference on this matter will just serve to FTT. Thanks. Also, you me email me if you have anything to add on my behavior of late. - BillCJ (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not an admin and never did anything to suggest I am. I was concerned with one of his edit summaries, and that was it. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, when he asked me to stop, I did [9]. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 01:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the confusion came when you wrote "other admins", which could be read to mean other than yourself. I'm sure that's not what you intended, just an unfortunate misinterpretation. Given the extensive wikistalking and harrassment that's been targeted at Bill, you might cut him a little slack. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the other that had me confused. JL, I apologize for being snappy, as it is as Alan said. - BillCJ (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 01:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Thank you very much for your comments! I'm not sure I'll have an RFA yet, though. Thanks. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

107 at Fox Field[edit]

Very nice shot of N192CH at Fox Field. Word through the grape vine is that it will be in an upcoming Ford Commercial.--Trashbag 18:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopters in pop culture[edit]

Alan, User:ANigg has created the Helicopters in pop culture page. I've dropped a line at User talk:ANigg#Helicopters in pop culture asking him to remove it, and to apply to DR instead. I have not added a CSD tag at this point to give him a chance to do things the right way first, and avoid any unpleasant consequenses for skirting an AFD-deleted page. Would you mind keeping an eye on this, and following up as you see fit? Thanks. - BillCJ 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Evoy[edit]

Would you clarify what information (or action) is needed to remove the COI reference on the Ken Evoy article? After writing it for a while, I feel a bit attached to the thing and the "COI" is like a glaring denouncement of my work. Is it something that I did...or didn't do? Hmm, perhaps a gander into why I take this so personal-like is in order? While I consider a psychiatric evaluation, your input would be appreciated, Alan. Thanks in advanceMaltiti2005 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The COI tag wasn't directed at you; if you look at the edit history, you'll see that his company has started editing the article, and as I said in my subsequent edit summary, the tagged was due to that. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Alan! But I'm still unsure what needs to be done to remove the COI reference. As an admin, can you clarify that, please? The Wikipedia article on COI isn't clear as to the process either. Thanks! Maltiti2005 (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear on your original question. I'd suggest going back to the edits that the company rep made, and checking to see if the information added is properly referenced. If not, just remove it, then make a note that you've done so on the talk page and go ahead and remove the tag. Sorry I did better answer the question the first time. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the added input, Akradecki. I will do just that. Maltiti2005 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little harsh?[edit]

Hi there. Your comment on this user's talk page: [10] is a little on the harsh side. What's all that about assuming good faith, and not biting the hand of new eds etc? I can see where you're coming from, but talk of 'copyright violations' and our policies are a little over the top. This user doesn't look like a vandal or someone intent on stealing others' copyright. He/she looks like someone that could do with a bit of guidance and actually has some pretty good fire related pictures to add, but might be just a bit over zealous in adding them and hastily creating stubs. I might be wrong, but in the meantime I've added a welcome template. Regards. Escaper27 19:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you think so. That user had 16 warnings regarding improper image tags, and then instead of getting the hint, a few days later came back and uploaded a whole bunch more. I am happy to AGF, but when a user ignores warnings and suggestions, and just keeps on working improperly, and when copyright is a big issue, then it's time to become a little more direct. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with TrueFocus[edit]

Why'd you delete the TrueFocus page? What qualifies it as spam? I guess adding it to focus stacking was a mistake, but why should the article be deleted? Please restore it. It's notability is that there is nothing else like it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.84.35 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, don't worry about it, but would you mind posting the data to my talk page? I'd like to post it elsewhere.75.66.84.35 (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of free turbine[edit]

Alan, the explanations of "free turbines" in the Turboshaft article are a bit vague and confusing (mentioned in two sections). Could you take a look and see if you can help? If you can't, maybe you could pass this on to someone who can. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be swamped with helicopter stuff this morning, but this afternoon I should be able to address it. A free turbine is fairly easy to explain. There is one unrelated inaccuracy that I saw in my quick look at the article, though, about the gearbox not being part of the engine. That's not true, and I'll address that, as well. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and no problem - get to it as you can. - BillCJ (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

FYI, you may want to comment. —MJCdetroit (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help[edit]

Alan or a watching admin, could you look at the discussion here on my talk page, and see if you can help answer the question? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter[edit]

Okay, you're the last one on the list, but only because I went down the Watchlist by visible pages. Tell me what you think and where you think the article needs to go to improve it. --Born2flie (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks really good...I don't really have much to suggest to improve it. Great job! AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sir. I did some editing of the Limitations section (one of the two sections I feel the article could do without). If it is going to be there, it is not going to look like a piece of crap tacked on to the end. --Born2flie (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption[edit]

So how do you accept an adoption offer? Wiki flight simmer (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Wiki_Flight_Simmer[reply]

Well, I guess you kind of just did. Things are a bit busy for me at work, but it should be lightening soon. In the meantime, why don't you write a little introduction to yourself? Tell me what kind of subjects you're interested in writing about and we'll see about getting you pointed in the right direction. Also, if you haven't already, you might want to make yourself familiar with some of our key policies, such as WP:V and WP:RS. Talk to you soon! AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash[edit]

It’s been over 30 days and it doesn’t look like anything’s happened to the article. Are you going to re-nominate it for deletion or will you contact User:Eurocopter tigre? I just want to get the ball moving because the article is basically the as it was before you nominated it. – Zntrip 01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nudge, I just went and dropped him a note. As far as I'm concerned, there's no need to renom...everyone already agreed to the compromise, which included deletion if the conditions weren't met. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the investigation are not available yet(even though the authorities said that they will be avialable after 30 days). However, they should come out soon, so I suggest keeping the article until then (it is imposible to find out if this event is notable or not, without the results of the investigations). Best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downtrip / Wikzilla II[edit]

Hello, in the past it seems you have dealt with User: Wikzilla who you blocked for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. The actions by another likely sock created shortly after Wikizila's block and kept as a sleeper account until his other accounts were blocked [11]. The Sock account has a identical style of editing and has edited only the same pages Wikizilla attacked the same editing style [12] [13]. A quick check shows the writing style used is also identical. Because of your status as a veteran administrator I ask you to look into this. Thanks for your time 68.219.147.147 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I actually gave Downtrip the benifit of the doubt - until this diff! Some people will never learn. - BillCJ (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I apply to be an administrator? I have been one on the separate Clemson Wiki for several years, but there I was nominated out of sheer devotion to working on the site. I see occasions on mainside Wiki where I think anon users ought to be blocked, but I haven't the authority. Mark Sublette (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

confirmed puppet, See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla. Regards Freepsbane (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events[edit]

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:

As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Penser[edit]

Please look into a violation of 3R by Penser who has reverted Alexander Graham Bell three times in a 24-hour period to his version. The issue of nationality was a "hot" topic on the talk page and a resolution in describing the scientist's nationality was decided upon. The lead paragraph is carefully written to indicate a main birthright as "Scottish" although an American citizenship was obtained. The amount of time spent in Canada is also discussed wherein all three nations have claimed Bell as their native son. FWIW, the user in question has also made some intemperate "attack" statements although I had earlier attempted to explain the issues on his talk page. Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bat Signal again[edit]

Forget the above request because I have started a discussion "string" on the Alexander Graham Bell talk page and instituted an invisible message to direct new editors adding to this topic to use the talk page first. However, there is this single-purpose account that smacks of a sock: Financialmodel who posts to the F-22/Eurofighter Typhoon pages on a contenious issue that was referred to appropriate talk pages. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Now for the other shoe![edit]

Alan, would you consider monitoring/administering the call for a consensus vote on the Fourth generation jet fighter talk page. I have no abiding interest in either the outcome nor the issue itself. I posted the following note to an editor that reacted in some trepidation to the call for a vote, (you will be able to decipher who it was quite easily).

(Call for a formal vote) Please see [14] for your input on a survey regarding the use of exercise reports in the article. Bzuk (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(Popular sovereignty)

Copyedit from my talk page: "Although I see nothing wrong with holding a survey, I do have misgivings about holding a binding straw vote of the CFD type: what do we do to get a broad sample and avoid a Lecompton Constitution type affair ala bleeding Kansas. What is the minimum turnout, what type of majority will rule a Simple majority or a Supermajority? will everyone who has taken part in the edit history be solicited or just a handful? And will outsiders and administrators be polled to gain a impartial consensus? Why do we only have the options of Keep and Remove when many want alternatives such as keep and clean, move to a separate relevant article, or other non listed options. Sorry for taking your time with such questions. Freepsbane (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Thanks for writing. Let me briefly explain my reasoning. This article along with the F-22 Raptor and Eurofighter Typhoon article have been swept up in a controversy initiated by an editor whose interest seems to be soley devoted to proving the merits of the Typhoon over other aircraft types. This editor engaged in Tendentious editing. From the Wikipedia guideline on tendentious editing, here are some of the characteristics of "issue" editors:

- Repeatedly reverts the “vandalism” of others
- Makes a constant repeating of the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.
- Campaigns to "Right Great Wrongs!"

What seems to have occurred is that a number of other editors, myself included, have been drawn into the swirl of elaborate discussions and rationalizations that have absorbed a tremendous amount of time and effort from all concerned.

More importantly, the tenor of the discussions have degenerated into an ill-considered and intemperate series of rebuttals and personal attacks, culminating in what I believe are ill-founded claims of sock puppetry. Remember, it's what I believe based on the edit history of the infamous Wikzilla. You probably have not been on the receiving end of Wkizilla's venom – I have and it is anything but subtle and reasoned. He savaged my home page countless times and tried to adversely affect an ARBCOM in which I was a party. Nothing in the (excuse my forthrightness here) stupidity that has ensued in the contretemps between various editors remotely approaches the Wikzilla savagery. Now saying all that, this is why I instituted the official call for a consensus-driven decision on the 4th generation jet aircraft: it is a formal process that has strict procedures to follow and any supervisor of the voting will not abide any disruptive attempts to sabatoge the discourse.

I put this survey out because I wanted all parties to have to comport themselves in a mannerly and civil fashion and to "force feed" the Wikipedia standards back into the talk page. This is what I will post on the talk page:

This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines; Do not respond to personal attacks nor become involved in them, however please note the following:

This is a subpage of Akradecki's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This article has been a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Now as to your concerns about time limits, "popularity contesting" and "vote stacking" which is understandable: I will refrain from other than casting one vote, participating extensively in the survey and instead call in an experienced admin and moderator to oversee the process and administer the vote. The standard for a survey is one week (or a reasonable period of time that permits all interested parties to participate). As to any other concerns, all editors' submissions will be carefully monitored for inappropriate actions, and that will be a priority for every interested editor not only the moderator. A conclusive decision is required due to the contentious nature of the previous discussions. Typically voters may also "flavour" their votes by having strongly agrre, or oppose votes or by providing altered versions, or alternative solutions which will also be considered. Note that consensus is not entirely based on the precepts of a majority vote, it is instead the decision that the majority can accept. That means that in a very close or "undecided" vote, there will not be a "clear-cut" consensus and the moderator may call for an extended period or make a decision that the majority will accept, even those casting negative votes or votes in opposition. FWIW, please contact me for further discussion; I do appreciate your taking the time to talk to me. Remember, keep the "cool." [:¬∆) Bzuk (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Now, in response to another editor's concerns: this is my advice, take it or leave it, no matter to me but I do sense a kindred spirit in you that really doesn’t want to resort to the “low blow” tactics that have been administered (with some lack of grace, I might add) upon you but you have not been adverse to replying in kind, however.

First, take a “breather” – leave it alone for awhile. (It’s tough, it’s a matter of principle and more, but backing off doesn’t diminish your stock, it enhances it!)

Next, make a record, electronic or otherwise of your actions, responses and even your thoughts on the matter (I noticed that you have a friend in John Reaves, count that as one of the “pluses.”).

Finally, continue to act in the best “high road” manner that I have seen in the last days. Be resolute, stick to your guns but observe politeness, respect and humility. (Look who’s talking, I can already hear my wife cracking up over my giving that kind of advice!)

I hope to hear from you again, even if it’s to tell me I’m talking out of the back of my hat (another Canajan colloquialism).

FWIW, I hope you will be able to look after the survey; I see it as a step back to getting people talking to each other again in a calm and collaborative, friendly way. Bzuk (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AH-1Z Viper[edit]

Alan If you get a chance can you take a look, & if you have any input, please do so by all means User:ANigg/AH-1Z Viper Happy New Year..ThanxANigg (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you had a Happy Holidays and are doing well, Alan. Bill and I are helping Drew with his AH-1Z sandbox article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SteveMancarelli[edit]

Am reviewing his unblock request. Where's the sockpuppetry evidence? It's not immediately apparent ... there are just two edits and the indefblock notice was posted by an anon who posted a bunch several months ago. But you're listed as the blocking admin, but without any statement as to who the puppeteer is and/or what the evidence might be. Can you help? Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, Alan (Akradecki) appears to be away from Wikipeida for an extended time. User:SteveMancarelli appeared to be a sockpuppet of user:Wikzilla, or of another similar user that used only IPs. Both engaged in trollish behavior, and wikistalking of both Alan and myself. User:SteveMancarelli was created shortly after User:Stefanomencarelli was banned by arbcom, and appeared to be attempts to get Stefano into trouble. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli#Log of blocks and bans for this name and a similar one, User:Stefanomanceralli, as listed by Alan. I hope this helps, and can at least lead you in the right direction. I'm sure the arbitrators on the case can shed further light if needed. - BillCJ (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You indef-blocked this user as a sock, presumably of User:Stefanomencarelli. He has requested an unblock since then. Reviewing his contributions, or lack thereof, I suspect that he may just happen to have a similar name and this could be a false positive. Would you consider unblocking him? (We can always reblock if he turns out to be an actual sock.) Stifle (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie, I posted this without checking the above. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kazenga LuaLua[edit]

Any chance of unprotecting this page now as hes now listed on the official website here, since you where the last admin to delete it, thanks if you can Nufc2006 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

our friend[edit]

Alan, when you get a chance look at these sockpuppets here and here The IPs are from the same (problem)location.70.4.160.74 (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP Checkuser confirms: here as well.FWIW 68.245.42.92 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, can you check on User:Downtrip (again) and User:SteveMancarelli? I think you'll find TomKat222 and downtrip's edits to be very similar, esp the fact that they edit many of the same pages such as F-22 and Typhoon. SteveM is worth watching too, tho so far he hasn't done any actual editing - he's probably still learning English. Also, the IPs reporting the vandals are from the same location, so they are probably lab geeks that the vandals beat up on all the time. They should be careful tho, since this vandal is known to beat up on people smaller and weaker than he is, tho is is afraid of those bigger than he is, as in the campus equivelant of Jim Wales, the football players. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DTT Surveillance nominated for AfD[edit]

I noticed that you've contributed more than once to that article and I thought you would like to know that I've nominated it for deletion. If you are interested, please add your thoughts to the debate: WP:Articles_for_deletion/DTT_Surveillance JJLatWiki (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents' worth on the Cessna Template[edit]

G'day from Oz. It seems to me to be easier to use Model numbers for the Citations. I reckon it would look much less messy on the template, and both the Beechcraft and Piper templates use model nos. despite them being used as seldom (or more seldom) as the Citation model nos. For instance, I have never in my life heard anyone say "Beechcraft 60" or "Beechcraft 77", "Duke" and "Skipper" are in universal useage. On the other hand I have heard "Cessna 650" or "Citation 500". Alternatively, you could consider separating the names on the Template, so for example there would be three different links to the same article covering the Citation III, VI & VII. This has been done in other Templates (for example this one). Anyhoo, as I said, just my two cents' worth. YSSYguy (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Sorceress into Sorcerer[edit]

I've propsed a merge from Sorceress into Sorcerer. Since you seem to have made a few edits to the former page, could you post your comments at the Talk page? Andareed (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird edits[edit]

It's a long time ago, but what are these edits about? [15] [16] x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can ignore this. I explained what happened. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pls Ren[edit]

I would like to be if possible renamed from iordanis_athanasiadis to iordanis_777. Thank you in advance!--Iordanis777^listening 12:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Union[edit]

FYI: I just started a stub for Aero Union. I noticed you had something in one of your sandboxes about it. Enjoy, --Trashbag (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

Great to see you contributing again. --John (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Take care Alan. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments appreciated! AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo the welcoming sentiments! Askari Mark (Talk) 21:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pics[edit]

Alan, are you going to be able to upload some new images? From your blog, some of the Gimli Glider would be great! - BillCJ (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A belated "Thank you"! BTW, do you have any of the Scaled Composites ARES? Such a unique aircraft needs a legal photo! Thanks. And in spite of "users" such as posted below, some of us are glad to see you back. - BillCJ (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouraging words! I actually have quite a few...the one in Flight International was mine, in fact. I'm a little hesitant to release any right now...local flightline politics. Whatever program it's currently on is really sensitive (I found out after the FI photo ran!). AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't want to get you any more hot water! Any way you can talk someone into releasing an old pic, as this thing has been around quite awhile now? I might be able to find one somewhere I can run as Fair use, but that's not my preference, of courcse. Thanks anyway. Oh, I don't get FI, so I didn't see that one, ~~and a search didn't scare it up~~. - BillCJ (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! Almost looks like a pick-up truck in the second pic! No wonder they were upset it was published. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha[edit]

I was just thinking about how much I love Wikipedia, so I decided to look back at how it all started for me. I was going through my first edits, and I came across this. Have a look at the article.. consensus has determined that it was a horrible sentence. In other words, people are on my side. I don't expect to see sentences like "[insert team name] cricket batsman" or "Manchester United soccer midfielder", so why should this article be treated differently? Just pointing that out. Oh yeah, what a ridiculous edit summary! --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was good of you to remind me of the arrogant and "in your face" attitudes that reigns so supreme around here, and which is the main reason I've taken much of my writing, photography and time elsewhere. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.. another Wikipedia hater. And you're an admin? How does that work? Don't get mad at me just because you were in the wrong. I wasn't trying to bring you down with that comment, just pointing out a mistake so that you can learn from it. Geez. The "hahaha" wasn't directed at you in particular, but what you did. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikipedia-hater at all. It's fantastic place. I'm an unkindness-hater, and nothing in what you wrote could be construed to be "kind". AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be construed as kind to you, but the real issue is whether it can be construed as unkind. And I don't see how anything I said was unkind. Just because the news reports that a "New York Yankees baseball pitcher" crashed his plane, doesn't mean the mistake should be repeated here. That should be obvious by now. I'll assume good faith and assume that you understand that. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

Hi Alan, nice to see your contributions again. "Don't let the healots get you down!" (Walter Brennan as the Colonel in Meet John Doe.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Same here, nice to see you back. Tom H (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My nominee:[edit]

For worst WP:AV article of the decade (so far anyway):

Aircrew member

- BillCJ (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AATF Guidelines being questioned[edit]

Alan, have you seen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Notability of accidents? You might be better equipped to answer User:LeadSongDog's concerns than I am, as you wrote the initial drafts, though I have done my best. Thanks - BillCJ (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]