Talk:KC-X/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Subject matter

This article covers the KC-X competition/program. The selected the winner is supposed to be designated KC-45. That aircraft will be covered in a separate article from this one. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - some overlap with Jeff's content.) Concur. The program is important enough to warrant a separate page, a la ATF and JSF, and has complicated history that would make it difficult to integrate into an aircraft airticle, as of right now anyway. On a tangental point, I'm pretty sure we'd cover an Airbus KC-45 winner separately from the A330 MRTT page, which already covers a variety of users and models. As to the KC-767 page, as long as Boeing keeps calling the Japanese and Italian variants the KC-767, then I'd support keeping that page separate from a Boeing KC-45 page, even though there will be some overlap in coverage. Also, since the KC-767 Advanced Tanker is based on a different 767 model than the KC-767J and Italian version, and the original USAF KC-767 model, it seems sensible to cover them separately. (Btw, just getting some thoughts out here.) - BillCJ (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's how I see a KC-45 article. It'll be somewhat different from the either of A330 MRTT or KC-767AT current versions. - Fnlayson (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Inadvertant move

Sorry, I messed up a move. Can an admin fix it? It should be renamed to KC-45. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No it shouldn't. Read above. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The aircraft article is at Northrop Grumman KC-45. So, I'm moving this one back to KC-X to cover the competition. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, the Northrop Grumman KC-45 page is live and kicking. I haven't added any new text, just used what was on the A330 MRTT page. Feel free to have at it! Also, I've asked an admin RLandmann, to move this page back to KC-X and protect it to prevent further moves. - BillCJ (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I was going to request the move back to KC-X. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
We have two KC-45 pages if anyone hasn't noticed. Kevin Rutherford 23:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs)
  • Yea, it's messed up at the moment. Give them a little time to fix and it should be fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Now a user with no idea of what has been discussed here has posted a "Hold-on" tag. I've asked him to remove the tag to allow us to have this page at the correct title, and propose a merge if he feels there should only be one article. FWIW, I doubt we'll get this straightend out tonight! - BillCJ (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
On second look, Jeff, I think we can merge everything here into the Northrop Grumman KC-45 page without much difficulty, as there really isn't that much here to begin with. - BillCJ (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That'll be alright. And make KC-X redirect to the NG KC-45 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all over?

My understanding is that the 29 Feb. 2008 order is only for the "first tranche" (whatever that means), and that there will be additional later orders as part of the KC-X program to replace the entire USAF tanker fleet. This article currently implies (twice) that the order has been placed and KC-X is all done. --RenniePet (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • KC-X covers up to 179 tankers. There'll be an initial contract for the early ones and then probably a follow on contract for the rest. See "Tanker contract award announced" for more info on KC-X contract. KC-X is essentially done as far as picking the winner. Down the road, there will be 2 more phases to the KC-135 replacement (KX-Y and KX-Z). There are some 400+ KC-135s to replace long term. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Btw, "tranche" means something like batch, round, or level. The Eurofighter Typhoon manufacturers use the same term for each batch of improvements introduced. - BillCJ (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems somewhat comparable to Block in the US, like F-16C Block 50. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, bon, c'est Francais, ça! (Une tranche de jambon = a slice of ham.) --RenniePet (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • so is it possible that phases 2 & 3 might be different than the KC-45? Will it be an open bid to primes? I vote for keeping this article seperate as it involves a complex process of multiple years that would complicate eht KC-45 article if all was included. Saltysailor (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Most likely. The other phases (KC-Y & KC-Z) are named different. KC-Z looks to be a replacement for the KC-10s. So that'll definitely be a new competition. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

inclusion

I can't see KC-X as being anything other than section in the Northrop Grumman KC-45 article now that the decision has now been made. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. REDIRECT Talk:KC-45
This has been discussed at Talk:KC-45, along with reasonings for two articles. Please participate there, and propose a merger of the tow pages if you msut. But for now, having the "KC-X" program page at KC- 45, an inadvertant move, is ridiculous. Please consider removing the hold-on tag, and allow us to at least make the title situation less confusing for the time being. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Max Takeoff fuel load

Maybe I haven't got the information correctly. But does this line state the KC-30 could only load 43.500kg during takeoff? This couldn't be right.

And if it means it can carry this amount with "additional cargo or fuel load", why doesn't then write the maximal amount here? In this version it seems to privilege the KC-767.

Do you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingolfin86 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The KC-30 can't take off with a full fuel load. The plane's empty weight + fuel capacity exceeds its max takeoff weight. It can add fuel from another tanker after takeoff to reach max fuel capacity. The KC-767 can takeoff with its full fuel capacity (less than KC-30's). The KC-30's takeoff fuel load was too low. I updated that without cargo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparent funny terminology

Whereas the table Specifications gives meaningful values for the parameters Maximum fuel capability, Max Takeoff fuel load and Max takeoff weight for the KC-30, nonsensical statements are given for the inferior corresponding KC-767 values : e.g.: Maximum fuel capability over 202,000 lb. What then is the actual KC-767 Maximum fuel capability? 2,999,999 lb?? 79.210.67.69 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The "over" wording comes directly from the references. That's the best info available now from a reliable public sources. Check out the reference 23 for yourself. It is not rare for some specs to be listed in some manner like that (e.g. +, >). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Why, in contrast to Northrop Grumman/EADS, does Boeing not say what these values are ?? There must be a reason for this funny language. Something smells here. 79.210.118.133 (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The KC-767AT is a heavier version for the KC-X competition. The KC-30 is basically the same tanker sold to Australia from a specs standpoint. That reference product card is about 1 year old and Boeing has had other things to do than to update some numbers in it. Keep looking for that conspiracy though... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Fnlayson, thanks for deflecting my question. Boeing is a company with thousands and possibly tens of thousands enigneers. Why do they state a range of 202,000 lb to infinity for Maximum fuel capability?? Give an honest answer. 79.210.93.114 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes Jeff, tell the truth. It's because Boeing is an Ee-vil company, producing civil products based on US government subsidies disguised as defense spending to protect European countries so they don't have to spend as much on defense, and can give subsidies directly to Airbus, except it's OK is Airus gets money for the KC-45, because Airbus is not Ee-vil. We can believe nothing Boeing says, so even if they were to give an explanation, we would not believe it! - BillCJ (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I think the Boeing critic has got a point. Boeing has got an example tanker ( the type sold to Australia ) in the air and can easily have done some simulations on their proposal ( if they have not done the maths they are simply incompetent ). They MUST have more accurrate numbers. The idea that Boeing is too busy to update the numbers on the reference card is simply a little silly : coming up to such a huge contract they will be using EVERY pr and advertsing trick they can, and updating the brochures at the moment will be more important to them than the actual engineering work. The only logical reason for Boeing to avoid publishing the numbers is because they fear that will look very bad by comparison and cause Boeing to lose the contract. 86.32.15.101 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Airbus has sold a tanker to Australia, not Boeing. Exact numbers are rarely needed for brochures and advertising material. Listing a fuel capacity something like "202,090 lb" instead of "over 202,000 lb" is not going to make any real difference with the KC-30 at 250,000 lb. Boeing may offer a tanker based on a longer 767 or maybe a 777 this next round anyway... -Fnlayson (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Information lost from "United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort"

BilCat, looks as though you merged the two, please work on recovering the details from the other article. I don't know how to do that or I'd help out. Also include the discussion pages which had ongoing information for KC-X. Thanks. Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It was not really lost. Most content was redundant with what was already here. Anyway, I've combined the text and references concerning KC-X. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see some of what you were talking about, it was much easier to read when it was broken apart into the four groups. Seems you don't like to "repeat" information on a page. Sometimes it isn't a bad idea to repeat info -- first in the "background" area, and second in the "detail" area. That way, if someone were interested in the quick look, they can get the top level background, and if more details are desired, they can then read the detailed section. Considering this is nearly a ten year program (that isn't even a program yet!), maybe the two areas should be realized. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
There really weren't any "phases" as such - just a haphazard attempt by 535 people to be president, all of whom trying in one way or antoerh to score political points, or worse - make money - for creating or destroying a future tanker. Quite sad actually, as they people who will suffer will be our servicement and women who still don't have any real prospects of seeing a new tanker for many years. Meanwhile, the KC-135s are getting old, and I wouldn't be suprised to see mass groundings in a few years. After which many of those same 535 people will cry loudly and hunt for the culprit! (Note there are no mirrors in Congress for this reason.) So, no, the article is quite fine as-is. - BilCat (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Interesting point on these planes being grounded. You are right about that -- if the airframe were grounded, all of the KC's operated by the US would be grounded. Seems to be a compelling reason to add a new airframe to the KC task. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The US also operates the larger & younger KC-10. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The repeated content here was essentially the same facts, with one version having tangential or unrelated content. Repeating information means updating or correcting it in multiple places when needed. This may goes against WP:Summary style and WP:Article size. The Lead is supposed to be the summary for the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
For anyone interested see the pre-redirect version at United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort for reference. All major content on the tanker proposals and contest itself were already here or were copied here. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

KC-X → KC-45 — Unless I am relying on old news, the Air force said it would name it the KC-45 whether or not Northrop was chosen or not. Perhaps there should also be an Boeing KC-45 article as well as the Northrop Grumman KC-45—username 1 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose this article is about the procurement process/program if and when an aircraft is selected it will have its own article and this should be kept as a history of the procurement program. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Milb1, but "program". :) Also, no one knows what the USAF will actually designate the KC-X winner (assuming there is one) this time around, and presidential administrations often change things around in oreder to distance themselves from the previous adiminstration, something the current admin. does a lot! - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Gone through this thing here before. This article concerns the program/mme itself. Maybe this could be merged into the aircraft article some point after a single contractor is selected and designation assigned. Also, members of Congress were suggesting a split buy last year to get the tankers faster. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversies

Per WP:BRD, I've removed yet another iteration of a "Controversies" section. This was composed solely of quotes from politicians, and as such is more akin to political posturing. I think we can work some of the info into the article, but a section such as this was not the wy to do it. We can make sure the sources these quotes are from are included in the article, even if just in the EL section. That gives the reader access to the information without promoting the politicians themselves. - BilCat (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for using the WP:BRD process.

Okay, here's what I think is important to add to this article: The very existence of this program is controversial. I do not think it is sufficient to add this information only to the "external links" section. Many people in the world (including politicians) have contributed to the controversies. Many more have presented hard questions about why this program exists, and propositions on why this program should be retired. In fact, this program was first turned over almost solely by a politician -- Senator McCain -- who brought the first controversies with the Boeing lease agreement to light. None of the quotes are political posturing, or at least in any definition that I've heard before. Robert Gates, Senator McCain, the Boeing CEO, and probably many other individuals are listed in the article already.

Why specifically do you have a problem adding additional politicians and associated quotes, and why do you have a problem with a controversies section that other people can contribute towards? Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the original information with verifiable references:

Controversies with program

The previous sections detail difficulties with the program and the RFP process. There are also controversies surrounding the program itself.

The Tanker Replacement program has been ongoing since the early 2000s, with the initiation of the initial lease program that was overturned. Since that initial program, according to Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the program has been “explicitly marginalizes or eliminates 21st century performance that was highly valued during the previous competition," and now "most of the RFP’s requirements could be met by the KC-​​135 designed over 50 years ago.” [1]

Representative Jim McDermott, D-Washington, has presented his concern over losing jobs in the American workforce, and foreign interest through EADS for the jobs created by the program. McDermott said, "This is a jobs program for American workers. Don't lose sight of that." [2]

U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) presented concerns with the Northrop/EADS Tanker win that jobs would be placed in Europe instead of boosting the US economy through this program. "We are hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs to foreign countries already. So I can’t imagine why – at a time like this – our government would decide to take 44,000 American jobs – good jobs – and give them to the Europeans. Instead of securing the American economy and our military while we’re at war, we’re creating a European economic stimulus plan at the expense of U.S. workers. " [3]

I haven't been following the KC-X bunfight, but I tend to agree with Sliceofmiami -- if this page is indeed about the procurement program rather than the aircraft itself, then it makes sense to me to note any surrounding controversy as long as it can be reliably sourced (as it is here). BilCat, you characterised this as "mostly quotes of political posturing" -- which is, of course, the whole point! :)
Rather than revert the section, it could be improved by finding any pundits who've commented on the political posturing, and by providing quotes and references for political posturing by the other camp. Just my $0.02 --Rlandmann (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Either way, a dedicated section to cover controversies is not needed and is poor practice. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Completely disagree with your sentiment Fnlayson. This program is controversial, and there seems to be enough real evidence of people outside our Wiki community that believes this to be true -- hence all the quotes. As long as the contents are verifiable, there should be support from Wiki to include the information. Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think what Fnlayson is trying to say is that calling the section "Controversies" is bad practice. Maybe a better way would be to reorganize the article chronologically, and the section about the most recent (current) RFP, talk about the posturing by Boeing/NGC/politicians. Throwing all the controversial stuff in one section would rob the article of chronological context. Because, lets be honest, the whole program has been steeped in controversy from day 1. Let's talk about that as it happened, chronologically. My thoughts, FWiW. -SidewinderX (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I specifically stated a dedicated section. The message at {{Criticism section}} explains it. I'm more for what SidewinderX suggested above. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that thought, SidewinderX. But there are arguments against having a tanker replacement. So where do we wind up putting things related to the controversies associated with having a Tanker replacement program at all? Would those be placed in the introductory area? Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, when did those points come up? If those arguments were made at specific times (i.e., come from quotes), then they can be included in the proper chronological section. If they were general issues that have come up over and over (with sources to back that up), maybe discuss it in a section about the "Need" of the program, or the program "Objectives". A good way to think about it, IMO, is that controversy doesn't happen for the sake of controversy. There's always context. It should be integrated into the article in a way that provides that context. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point on chronology. However, sometimes whitepapers and arguments for or against a technology may not coincide with a particular award. For example, I'm not sure that the bidwar controversies relate to the program controversies very well. Regardless, though, I go back to my original question to BilCat and Fnlayson, why do you each keep deleting content that is verifiable? These discussions can be ongoing while we figure out how to organize the page. Sliceofmiami (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I think covering the controversy should be included in the article, but I'm not sure if this "controversy" section is the way to do it. That said, if these quotes end up in the article, there needs to be some context added. For example, quotes from the Representatives/Senators from Washington (State) will tend to complain about EADS and Europe, because Boeing is based in their state. Likewise, the Congressmen/women from Alabama will be supporting the NGC/EADS offer, as the production line would be based in Alabama. We need to make sure that context is included. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, SidewinderX. So let's start adding -- and enhancing -- the information, instead of censoring the information. Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to add back the controversies information from the page BilCat or Fnlayson merged, dealing with the UAV solutions, procurement lifecycle, et al. Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Those aspects of the "controversies" were removed as they appear to be fringe and tangental objections not specific to the KC-X itself. Moreover, UAVs are being tested to refuel from tankers, something ignored in those sources, especially as UAVs are getting faster, such as the N-UCAS, meaning they'll have less range than current UAVs, and thus need refueling to make long missions.
I have no problem with the inclusion of the content of the quotes I deleted, and even a small portion of the quotes. However, we need to be aware of turning sections of the article into a quotefarm. In particular,
"When editing an article, a contributor should try to avoid quotations when: a summary of a quote would be better. This may be due to lack of importance, lengthy articles, etc. On lengthy articles, editors should strive to keep long quotations to a minimum, opting to paraphrase and work smaller portions of quotes into articles."
Finally, most of the editors here edit a wide variety of articles. WP is an encyclopedia, and as such it's not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of every aspect of a subject. A good read of many of the Featured Articles on WP, of various subjects, will give one a good sense of how best to approach subjects. - BilCat (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"I have no problem with the inclusion of the content of the quotes I deleted" -- good, then problem solved, BilCat. Add them back. Sliceofmiami (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

By "content" I mean the data, not the whole quotes themselves. Do you not know how to read in context? - BilCat (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
BilCat, have a drink. Add the "content" back and enhance the article, instead of continuing to delete verifiable content. Sliceofmiami (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Break

Ok, just a little break here to get everyone's thoughts reorganized. Sliceofmiami: The reason Bill hasn't added the quotes back is because it is a general policy to establish WP:CONSENSUS on something where there's disagreement. Clearly, there's a bit of disagreement here. While the KC-X program is definitely a current topic, I doubt there are hordes of people loosing out on material while we decide how to organize this article.

I understand your point on chronology. However, sometimes whitepapers and arguments for or against a technology may not coincide with a particular award. For example, I'm not sure that the bidwar controversies relate to the program controversies very well. Sure, there are always arguments for and against something that don't happen at a specific time. BUT, this is an article about a program. If there is a white paper, or a study, or a think tank report, out there for or against a tanker proposal, it can be integrated where it was brought up. I.e., if the USAF cited the XXXX Study as a reason to procure a new tanker, than it can be cited chronologically where it came up. If it is repeatedly cited throughout the program, mention it several times. If it's not been cited by anyone, it doesn't belong in the article about the program. It may have a place in Aerial refueling, but maybe not here.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "bidwar" controversies. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi SidewinderX, what I meant by bidwar controversies was that Boeing and Northrop have each engaged in political battling and warring over their particular bid(s). I was trying to describe the bidding process controversies (the two particular companies) as separate from the program controversies (the fact of spending $40B US for this particular KC-X replacement). I see them as two different entities. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • On adding the material back, all of this was verifiable content. I still don't understand why the information was reverted. We are now just discussing where the information belongs within the article, either inline chronologically or in separate sections. That could have occurred without revert. From the Help:Reverting page "reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive when done to excess." Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"(these things are not pre-KC-X background & was fine in the Lead) "

Fnlayson, why do you wish to advertise that Northrop Grumman won a later version of the RFP in the head section instead of chronologically? Are you employed by Northrop or something? Sliceofmiami (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Lead is a summary of the article, and an introduction. It's a major point, and worth mentioning up-front. Please refrain from baseless/groundless accusations. These are close to Personal attacks, which are not allowed. - BilCat (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
BilCat, this was a question to Fnlayson. Are you the same person? Asking if Fnlayson is employed by Northrop is not a groundless attack. The first major point is that Boeing had a contract. Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stay on topic here, and stop the Persoanl attacks. The next one gets you a formal warning, then we go to ANI. - BilCat (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
My edit summary should have been clear enough. The Background section is meant for pre-KC-X (before ~2007) content. I've clarified the Lead some more. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Sliceofmiami: there is no need to make baseless accusations against other editors, please read WP:AGF. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As the lead should summarize the entire article, I have added a couple of brief sentences to the lead summarizing the background of the award. And a picture, because everyone likes pictures! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

^ That was something left to do. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks SidewinderX, your enhancements are mirrored to what I tried to do -- to not highlight the most recent proposal in the lead of this article in a ten year process. Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ahunt, respect and good will goes both directions. You and BilCat have used hostile words like accusation. My question was not an accusation, it was a Question, and I don't think it was baseless. I could have asked it on Fnlayson's talk page but it seemed it relates mostly to this article and specifically to a revert and other redacts that Fnlayson performed. Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The question does not needs to be asked at all. To even ask it is accusatory of bias, and without credible evidence - disagreeing with you does not count - is bad faith. Jeff is a very good editor, and always strives to be neutral in his editing. For you to even ask the question is insulting. - BilCat (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
BilCat, Fnlayson's revert was overturned. Let it go. Sliceofmiami (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Was just edits, none were reverts. Try to state the real issue better in the future. Let's move on... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/
  2. ^ http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4296903
  3. ^ http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=294073
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KC-X/Archive_1&oldid=1074308065"