User talk:Dodger67/Archives/2011/February

CopyViol

You've added copyViol text to the article by reverting several edits by 2 people trying to remove the violations. Maybe you're unaware of the policy; please read it here WP:COPYVIO WP:PARAPHRASE. This is the second time I've written these policies for you; first time was here in the text box when I removed it [1]. This is being referred to the noticeboard: [2] Ebanony (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on the noticeboard. Roger (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The solution is simple: we cannot use direct text unless it's inside quotation marks "", is limited & is attributed. The other way is to put it in your own words & attribute it. Either is fine. Sometimes (like perhaps in this case) people use their own words and include certain difficult phrases in quotes. If you do that, I will withdraw the claim straightaway. I'm more than willing to believe you simply misunderstood the policy. WP:PARAPHRASE is a pretty good guide. See also WP:COPYPASTE. Here's just an example:

"The number of disabled veterans has jumped by 25 percent since 2001 — to 2.9 million — and the cause really is no mystery." [3] This can become "Increased US military involvement has resulted in a significant increase of disabled military personnel since 2001. According to Fox News, this is a '25 percent' rise, with more than '2.9 million' total veterans now disabled."

In this case, you might not have to quote "2.9 million" or "25 percent", but I'd do it. Just an example.Ebanony (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I'll use your proposed text. Glad we could resolve this problem. Roger (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to use that version; it's just an example. Please let me know when you posted it. I withdrew the claim as soon as I saw your posting.Ebanony (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your version is fine - I've used it just as you wrote it. Roger (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

CRIPA page

Thanks for the quick response! And thanks for moving the blank sections to the sandbox. I am in class and was helping another student and showed her how to do something and the sections were gone! So I added them again and then checked the history page and saw what you had done. In response to your question, all of the research I have done so far (which is not much I must admit) states that those 5 sections (the new ones currently on the page) are what the law looks at. I know that there are physical disabilities that some people have, but I think that they only focused on incarcerated individuals.

I do not know why, then, nursing homes are included, but they are, maybe just grouping individuals in government-run institutions that may have their rights oppressed. I will look into this more! If you have any good links or ideas, please keep sending them to me, I am really new to this and want to do this article justice!!

Stephen G. Jones Jones3sg (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The answer may lie in the legal definition of "nursing home". The distinction between "incarcerated" and "institutionalized" is probably also significant - "incarcerated" being a subset of "institutionalized". I'm not American so my access to and understanding of US law and policy is marginal at best. I'm also about to go to bed, I'll probably get back here in about 12 hours. G'night! Roger (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I just need to get myself in a routine...can't just wait on class. Thank you for your suggestion, and I will look into the distinction between them. Jones3sg (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

SNEB

Hi again, Roger. Please don't take offense but I've reverted you here. Although I understand that you meant well and the thing is I'm only quoting facts and figures from British sources, not French. Surely, you should know that us editors of English Wikipedia relies mostly on English language sources for citations and references, not other languages if we can help it, right? That said, you're not wrong too to have explained that in the edit summary. However, the reason I'm quoting the EE Lightning as a notable example (per WP:Notability) was that it stands out being the only British product used by the Saudis and was the only EE Lightning operator to field the SNEB/Matra JL-100. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely that would make it less rather than more "notable" (not using the strict WP sense of the word) . Mentioning it so prominently while barely mentioning the hundreds of other aircraft (many different types) that use(d) this rocket runs into undue weight problems.

• Problem is, I've provided a very reliable source (established since the early 1900's) to back the story up and unless you can find a Mirage fighter jet that can mount the JL-100 on the over-wing pylon like the EE Lightning does, I think we're pretty much settled on the issue. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK I hope I see what you are getting at - the notable thing about Lightning's use of this weapon is the unusual (unique?) way it is mounted.

However - there's always a "however" LOL - the Lighning carries many different types of weapons and fuel tanks on top of it's wings so it's not specific to the JL-100. It is a notable fact about the Lightning, not about the JL-100 or the SNEB rocket as such. Nitpicking like this is really not my style but I think this information would be a better fit on the Lightning's article where it is specifically relevant and notable, rather than as an WP:UNDUE "factoid" in this article - which is primarily about the rockets fired from JL-100 (and other) launcher pods. Perhaps we should move this discussion to the article talk page so that other editors can also contribute their thoughts and opinions and so reach a consensus. Well it's getting late here and I have an early start in the morning so I'm saying "g'night". Roger (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)