Talk:Republic XF-12 Rainbow

Query about fastest multi-engine piston powered
What about the De Havilland Hornet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMCKen (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, and not only the contemporary De Havilland Hornet but also the Dornier Do 335 and F7F Tigercat were able to achieve those speeds. FWIW, the text is slightly revised to address this issue. Bzuk (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

References, Style, Format
This article does not follow any established format and all the references have to be rewritten. Whoever contributed the latest edit (an anon), please do not add any more information or citations until the revisions are in place. FWIW Bzuk 07:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

I was the One who Added to this page
I appoligize that the page was not layed out as well as it could. I was the one who "dumped" the text yesterday as well. at the time i was at work, and was in the process of working on it (hence all of the seperate uploads). Thats when the Text was reverted. I waited until i was home, so i would have more time to type all of the information in a lump sum.

Im not gonna lie, this is my first update on this page and i am learning. the information i have add/provided is accurate per the references i have noted. i saw the references didnt update correctly when i posted early this morning, i was in the process of trying to correct it, but the page said someone else was updating it...

i will not make any more additions until the "error's" are corrected. i would like to learn, what did i do wrong. Also what are the rules regaurding adding pics that are ccurrently posted on other wesites? or am i just able to post links?

thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadymattg (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Watch the changes that are made- first of all, your use of capitals. References are another matter, I will have to try to find the original sources first to show you how to create a citation and reference bibliography. FWIW Bzuk 02:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

I have made a few minor corrections on the XF-12 page.
Mainly I corrected a few spelling errors, and moved/adjusted a few phrases to make the article more readable

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadymattg (talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So much of this article is "cribbed" from another source that unless there are changes, all the edits will be reverted as violations of the site. You cannot simply copy materials verbatim, there are photo copy machines for that. FWIW Bzuk 03:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

how can i fix this? what needs to be done?

i did "crib" some lines from these websites, as what was written was accurate and well put, especially i concerns to operation birds eye but here is a another website with the exact same information, so one of these sites (either the one you linked, or the one below im linking) directly cribbed from the other http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/xr-12.htm

also i added to and modified to what they provided. as all the information provided isnt accurate. the first line on either website is flat out wrong. the aircraft was not designed as a airliner and converted to a recon aircraft, it was designed and built for recon in the beginning then was to be converted for airline duty

I am simply trying to add more information concerning a great aircraft that isnt well known. no site i have ever come across has the information now massed on this page, mainly because i have tried to take the time to collect it. even if the information is gathered from various sources. isnt an encyclopedia about providing information on a subject?

The wings magazines i have reference are sitting right next to me, i also have flying september, 1948 coming to me. it also has an extensive article on the xf-12

As i have stated this is a learning experiance for me. As i study the wikipedia rules, and try to learn the format and how things are organized, arranged, i realize that i am in over my head. all the knowledge i do have has been painfully learned trying to keep up with the corrections you have been making and the criptic hints/notes you have been leaving. Not that i am complaining, just stating the fact the we are not on the same playing field when it comes to this site and there rules and requirements.

but i have stumbled across a couple of points: 1."You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating." what can i say, i have taken this rule to heart... 2."If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it", and yes i read the link concerning the details behind that. im looking for help, im asking for help to work through this editing process. 3."Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." im hoping that although i have obviously violated a "rule", that this issue can be corrected, so that the information is not lost 4."The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both" again, just trying to keep this information where it belongs 5."building an encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared to that goal. Zero. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated" just pointing this out so that you dont "revert" the information back, at least not with out giving me an opportunity to correct it

now as for the other side of the coin, i do take full accountablity for what i have written, and certain lines of it was "cribbed", but i want to make it right. and do what needs to be done to correct it. and perhaps learn in the process

"Material that is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced. Add appropriate source information to the article wherever possible, or move unsourced material to an article's talk page until sources can be found." If the information i have "cribbed" is not copy writed, it can stay then, right? how can i tell if its copy righted? especially when indentical text shows up on two seperate independant sites?

I know this a lot to read. but i apriciate your time and guidence on this matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadymattg (talk • contribs) 07:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to the questions above: (repeated on your home "talk page") Shadymattg, thanks for your comments and explanation. I will provide a framework for discussion by dealing with each point you have raised.
 * 1) Contributing to Wikipedia for a newcomer is welcomed and learning the "rules" prior to submitting would be very difficult to master.
 * 2) A request for assistance is likewise appreciated as it does take a period of time to learn the process in order to contribute within the sometimes overly complex article formats that have been established by other editors. What you have chosen to undertake is the daunting prospect of becoming an author of a historical article and either task, namely writing in an acceptable literary standard as well as providing accurate researched data is extremely difficult for the "newbie" and more experienced Wikipedia editors can provide valuable "bridging."
 * 3) Although another editor immediately challenged your first edit, after the edit was re-inserted with an attempt to provide validation, I considered your efforts a "good faith" contribution.
 * 4) The XF-12 Rainbow article is a prime example of an article that was a "work-in-progress" that would be characterized as a "stub" requiring more detail. Any substantive additions to the article are welcomed.
 * 5) Bearing in mind that your edits had not been disruptive, inaccurate or examples of vandalism, the submissions were acceptable. After initial review, certain phraseology became suspect as most of the submission was coached in awkward, poorly-written and grammatically flawed sections, these phrases raised concern that they were not "your work." A very cursory examination of available research showed that the material submitted was plagiarized and is not acceptable. The crux of the issue regarding copying is that any use of a phrase, passage or portion of another's work is considered a copyright violation whether the material is identified as protected by copyright or not. Historians and researchers do rely on sources, ranging from first-person accounts such as interviews to second-hand records in extant media and third-person sources. It is contingent upon researchers to draw from reliable, authoritative works but to be cognizant that plagiarism does not occur and all instances of plagiarism must be removed in the article. It's a big undertaking but no larger than the original submission which normally takes a great deal of time to "craft" or develop and when a "textdump" occurred, "warning flags" were raised. My background as you can determine by checking my home page is as an author, editor and teacher and your work was nearly the "classic" example of a student's work that was submitted as original but was mainly copied without proper attribution.
 * 6) In order for copyright material to be accepted there are only two viable options:
 * Quoting and attributing the original source through proper citations and bibliographical referencing and
 * Rewriting the material to eliminate any plagiarized material. The second option is the only realistic alternative to a complete reversion of all the submitted material and that is my recommendation. FWIW Bzuk 12:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for talking the time to respond to my questions. As you can probably tell, english is not my strongest subject. Hence most of the "errors" that you brought up.

I did crib (and modify) information that was posted on other sites, to help speed the process for posting this information. Considering the information was valid (as it is referenced on several websites) i thought (and maybe that my issue) that i would be able to use some of what is out there, and build and modify it to suit my needs. Obviously i was wrong. i didn't just copy and paste as my work contained (and still does) many grammatical and spelling errors. Not even mentioning my strange passion for capitalizing words that do not need to be. But i did Probably copy lines verbatim. That will need to corrected, so the information will be allowed to stay.

If allowed to continue, i will make corrections over the next few days (i have to work this into my schedule), and rewrite the text as needed. I will also be more diligent with my spelling (spell check), and capitalization errors. As to the format and grammatical errors, I may still need some assistance.

--Shady Matt 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundant?
The article states, regarding the onboard cameras, "The electrically heated camera lenses were ground from optical glass to eliminate distortion." Aren't all lenses ground from optical glass, being optical in use?.... 24.21.10.30 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Section POV tag
I have added a POV tag to the last section, regarding the last paragraph. Contains rather glowing praise of the aircraft, without offering any sources. In particular, the claim that "had the aircraft been ready in 1944, it certainly would have been ordered" needs a citation. Dpenn89 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is cited, and a POV tag for the whole section is excessive. Tag being removed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC).