User:Clawson/Archives/Talk 3

Guidelines for Wikipedia lists of ethnic groups
Please may I draw your attention to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guidelines_for_Wikipedia_lists_of_ethnic_groups

Your contributions would be very welcome.

Brownlee 11:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Piano
Yes, it must have been something like that. Piano was also capitalized, as a noun would be in German. Thanks for stopping by. Chick Bowen 14:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Trade Dollar
In response to your request in the United States dollar coin article talk page, linked and article cleaned up!! --293.xx.xxx.xx 22:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Camino
Hey! No problem at all. I just thought it would be nicer to give the .0 releases as a benchmark as to the project's progression, as we do later in the article under "Releases". We should keep the "Latest Stable Release" front and center, preferably in the first paragraph as we do right now. Regards, Mu5ti 08:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We were thinking the same thing...See you around :) Mu5ti 21:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

CWT
The point is that CWT is a kind of name a con artist would choose to rip off lots and lots of "ordinary" people. Experienced investors will stop reading/listening anything that begins; "this Will Change the World!"

Of course, a haiku isn't NPOV and I don't know how to NPOVise it, so i put it on the talk page.

--Sinus 13:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Coin Collecting Library
This is in reference to the recent removal of a link that I placed in the external links sections that you removed. You indicated in your note that this was probably a spam site.

I can assure you it is not. Yes, there is advertising on the website but that advertising in of itself is of help to the reader as each page will of course display unique ads pertient to the content of the article being read, providing the reader with additonal websites where they can find more information on the subject of the article. It costs the reader nothing to click on one of those links but gives them a wealth of information at their fingertips, much of which may not be commercial in nature itself.

There is nothing on our website were we are selling the reader anything. There is a link to our website in the header of course but what is wrong with that? We are providing the resources in hardware, bandwidth and manpower afterall to maintain the website. Otherwise it is nothing but content and in fact, is far less commercial in nature than many of the links already in that section.

For example, the very fist listing entitled "Current US Coin Prices" links directly to GOLDEN EAGLE COINS, which is purely a commercial coin dealer's website. How can that link be acceptable and mine not when I am not offering a single product for sell on my website and provide nothing by pertinent information to the reader?

Ads are not necessarily evil or spam when provided in a context that is actually helpful to the reader in exploring further the content of the article. Given in time I expect the website to grow to hundreds of articles and further develop the website, manually locating links appropriate to each individual article would be a major undertaking. By making use of the asd were people are specificly tarketing that topic, it reduces the maintenance requirements by on order of magnitude.

Please reconsider the removal of our website or at the very least, ensure a level playing field is maintained by removing obvious commerical websites from the list.

Thank you for your consideration,

--Coinsguy 23:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Numismatics
Just something to keep ya busy! :)    Jo  e  I  21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam
Well done for reverting all that spam on aviation articles. --Guinnog 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My AWB replacements
Thanks for your message. I have replied on my own talk page. EuroSong talk 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Yeah - Often I only use edit summaries if I feel like I have to explain myself. WhisperToMe 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"(cur) (last) 03:42, 28 August 2006 Clawson (Talk | contribs | block) m (→Aircraft - maintenance history not relevant to crash, airliners.net photos already covered in external links)"

Delta disagrees (see http://news.delta.com/ ) - remember it has all of those specifications in the news page.

The Airliners.net edit is cool, though. WhisperToMe 04:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was a CRJ-100, then why do all four of the Airliners.net photographs claim it's a CRJ-200ER? I think that airfleets.net is incorrect. 70.58.112.77 06:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Alex
 * Wouldn't be the first time the info on Airliners.net was wrong. In fact, errors in photo captions there are pretty common.--chris.lawson 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove that airfleets.net is any more accurate than Airliners.net? I noticed on airfleets.net that users can correct information (subject to webmaster/administrator approval), and the same is true for a.net photos. I really wish the FAA site was more specific. 70.58.112.77 06:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Alex

Upon further investigation I believe you are right. I simply found it very strange that Canadair continued to produce the CRJ-100 for so long considering that the CRJ-200 held the same number of people but had higher performing engines. I am aware that some aircraft types overlap, but I wasn't expecting such an overlap to last for six years. It is difficult because any articles regarding the CRJ-100 are mixed together with the CRJ-200 making such information hard to find/determine. Another reason I believed it to be a CRJ-200 was because I've flown on planes that I absolutely know to be CRJ-200s that were delivered both before and after 2001. I also found more credible sources regarding the type of the aircraft, specifically the Delta website as well as an NTSB press conference. Sorry for the mix-up, and I will try to better verify my data in the future. 70.58.112.77 07:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Alex

VFR vs. IFR
Yes, please switch it around so it will convey the point that the weather, the darkness, and the rules should have directed their eyes to the instruments that would have shown them their error while conforming with what you know to be correct. Somehow, their confidence that they were going in the right direction was boosted by factors not yet seen to the public. You can't fly VRF if there's no V, and I'm not aware of any other method that would permit talkeoff than IFR.

Using the wrong runway
Clawson, when you removed the edit upon which I added Singapore Airlines Flight 006 you wrote the comment "at such time as this is determined to be causal, it can be re-inserted..." Are you saying that using the wrong runway was not causal to the Comair tragedy or to Singapore Airlines Flight 006? It seems very clear using the wrong runway happened in both accidents. In the ASC on the Singapore accident report it said "it was stated that the flight crew did not review the taxiing route, despite having all the relevant charts, and as a result did not know the aircraft had entered the wrong runway". Reports show the taxiing route was changed within the last week. It's a wonder other pilots diid not take the wrong runway before this. I suspect it will come out that within the last week other pilots will corroborate that the error on Sunday was an accident waiting to happen. This airport remodeling is being taken too lightly. This was a $35 million dollar project. It was a large improvement for Bluegrass field and was in the final phase. The improvement added 600 feet to both ends of 4-22. In order to accomplish this they shut down the airport last weekend. Longer range plans were to extend 8-26 to be the same length (or nearly so) as 4-22. However, in 2001 the cost was estimated to be $80 million so instead they opted to lengthen 4-22, because they needed to obtain property rights which they could not get at the time. Oddly enough the crash ended up being on that property.

Also a mural was added to the 80 x 300 foot retaining wall at 22. The mural was painted by Eric Henn. You probably don't know him but he lives in the small town where I live. His murals are so realistic they fool people into seeing things that are 2D to look like 3D. The mural has nothing to do with the accident but for 22, the mural has been noted to given the illusion of a bridge structure.

I can't imagine that two experienced pilots would both make the mistake of turning down a 75 foot runway that was not lighted (according to reports) without some some visual that would have told two people that they were doing the correct thing. Maybe that fact has not been proven but it seems notable that the accident happened in a manner similar to the Singapore crash, given that the taxiway used for 4-22 is the same as 8-26 until intesected by 8-26. Mfields1 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On my talk page, where you say "Perhaps you can't imagine it, but until there is a link, any implication or claim that the two are related" I never said the two accidents are related - but they are similar. Similar meaning that a wrong runway was taken and and accident occurred.  I've read somewhere that taking the wrong runway happens less often than a lightening strike.  Who knows?  I can tell you that 1 week ago I was out flying with my buddy.  He has a general aviation VFR only license and I have flown with him for years.  We were flying out of Butler County regional airport, which has one runway, 11-29.  When we walked to the hanger to get the plane out the aircraft were using 29 but we found out a pilot was practicing his instrument approaches.  When we left the hanger a half hour later the wind direction marker was showing we should use 11.  We started up the taxiway and asked the tower which runway to use and they told us to use 29, which we did.  But, 45 minutes later when we were returning they were using 11.  I'm not even saying this is related to the Comair accident, but what I am trying to say is "something" was an indicator to the pilot to line up on 26 instead of 22.  I'm implying a visual indication.  I agree that's up to the NTSB to decide or perhaps the testimony from the co-pilot, should he recover.  Sorry to be so long winded :-) on the reply. Mfields1 23:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Runway Numbers with leading zeros
Hello, There is a situation at Blue Grass Airport concerning runways incorrectly labeled with leading zeros. I've noticed that you are careful to correct articles which make this common mistake, so I would welcome your input on that article's talk page. Thanks. 65.127.231.6 09:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Only One Controller in the Tower
The fact that there was only one controller in the tower is a hugely important fact, but I conceed that your persistence in removing it will prevail. The FAA will be blamed for the crash. Even though the controller isn't responsible for assuring that the jet makes it to the appropriate runway, this exact same accident scenario was prevented in 1993 by an attentive controller who was not doing the work of two. All the major and non-major news outlets include the controller in their stories. Wikipedia fails so often at achieving the wide viewpoints it should have. It's not Britannica. It should tack between the safe encyclopedia on the shelf in the den and the free-for-all that is the Internet.192.246.0.76 19:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Chris Lawson, I'm afraid that censoring this article of facts which YOU feel are irrelevant, most certainly does not fall under a NPOV. Arrogance of the sort being displayed by you, should have no place in Wikipedia. Paul venter 16:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris. You may remember me from Pilot certification in the United States. I wanted to let you know that I understand your position in the Comair article and I support you. I would join in the discussion but I don't have the energy for that sort of thing. :-) The talk page makes me wonder how many of the article's editors know anything about aviation; many people seem to be of the opinion that if CNN reports it, it's true. As you and I know (along with every other pilot on Earth), the media is the worst thing that ever happened to aviation. -- Captaindan 00:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comair Flight 5191 notes
Well, that last similar incident is vague, so why not add further details? It's not like ASRS has much more than that comment, filling in that would get all the info available, in a more readable format (I doubt everyone could read that report). Xxxxxxxxxxx 03:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just want to say I understand your passion for this article. I think we all want to make this a better page. You have expertise to spot any BS, when it comes to aviation.  We need this on this page.  But please give a little breathing room for other editors. I'm sincere when I say that deletion isn't the only way to make the page better.  With that, seeing that it's 3:25 in the AM, I'm going to say goodnight. Mytwocents 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

SR-71 in Kalamazoo
Hello there. I noted you edited the article on Kalamazoo to mention that the SR-71 on display at the Air Zoo is the only remaining one. However, I looked at the article on the SR-71 and it listed a bunch of places in the US where you could find one on display. Do you have a source for the statement that the SR-71 in Kalamazoo is the only one remaining?

Many thanks.

Munion 17:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: My mistake, I did not notice the "B" designation which was appended to SR-71.

Munion 18:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your continuing high-handedness
Dear Chris, I suppose one could use words like 'misrepresent', 'prevaricate', 'dissemble' and a dozen other euphemisms. However there is really no more polite or straightforward way of saying it. You provoke reaction by your unbelievably autocratic tactics, and your failure to apologise to your fellow editors for these actions, inclines one to believe that power has gone to your head. Then when your fellow editors respond in outrage, you shelter behind quotes from the Wikipedia policy. As I have pointed out to you, your actions might fall within the strict letter of Wikipedia rules, but the spirit you display is deplorable and will only serve to alienate other editors. Paul venter 18:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Chris, I just wanted to let you know that I will no longer be working on the Comair Flight 5191 article. You have deleted everything I have written. There were alternatives to deletion and sarcasm.  But you made your point by marking your deletion of my contributions as minor edits and treating my work as vandalism. You have made clear that nothing I author will be allowed to remain. I'm not a novice wikipedian,  I just control my actions and tread lightly on others work. I have deleted others work in the past, but I have found that tagging and discussion work better.  I rarely delete, I try to add content.  See my note on Wikipedias edit policy on the article talk page.


 * You have played the bully on the Comair Flight 5191 page. I'm going resist the temptation to do an RfC on your actions. but be sure, I will have something to say if one is made.  Mytwocents 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Chris, do you wait at your computer for people to change the Wiki article so you can change it back and have it become only your own editing? I never see much activity where you add to the article but a lot of activity on your part to whittle out any tiny item that someone inserts into the article. You have often even added phrases to the edits that indicate "if you can word it this and so, then "I'll allow it..." Are you in a position on the Wiki staff where you alone control all the content of the aviation articles, even to the point not allowing persons to change some minor item?  On the current edit history page the screen I am looking at shows 50 edits on the Comair article.  23 of these edits were made by Clawson.  Most of these are reversions.  We get the point that you are a pilot and flight instructor but we are not your students on Wiki.  Mfields1 00:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep following me around. Look for a few of the older articles you have edited.  Mfields1 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. Mfields1 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lawson, as usual your logic is flawed - I added the passenger list, and you and your aides have reverted it repeatedly. You are the one who is in violation of the 3 revert rule. Also, I asked you kindly not to communicate with me in future - would you please comply. Paul venter 06:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol, Chris, I guess I'm your sidekick now. Next thing you know, I'm going to be your sockpuppet. VxSote 16:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

spell-check
I wrote "spell-check" to the last editor to check his writing. Maybe cause of the language barrier, it's misunderstood, i should have written it as "wou should check your spelling". I usually wrote "sp-ch" for spell-check. I only changed unable to able. Also, please read what i wrote as a responce to User_talk:Emt147: Hi, first of all i should warn you that one of the basic principles of wikipedia is to assume good will Assume good faith. We are trying to help to project, not to harm. Your information is not correct, cause just check the site of Turkish Air Forces. You can see the technical details of the inventory. Furthermore, Turkish Army bought AIM-120 AMRAAM just for F-4's. I think there exits a spelling mistake in your source, "able" maybe falsely written as "unable". If you are insistent, tell me your references or sources. I'd like to check them, too. Thanx e104421 15:25. 4 September 2006 (UCT)

Reply to user talk:Seicer
I am going along the lines of adding an "Aftermath" section to discuss some details found post-crash, such as what you indicated with the FAA staffing policy. While that would open up a list of unwarrantable edits, I think we can par a list down on the talk page, with people adding in what they want to see added (and see if people agree/disagree with it). If someone adds something that's not on the list, it can be "voted" upon or discussed on a case-by-case basis. Discussing this on a case-by-case basis would be the best way to weed out irrelevant material.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Coin Edit
Regarding this edit, Granted it was wierd, in that coinpage.com was already on there, but the link that was removed I believe really is spam. It's disguised as "Current US Coin Prices", but it's really a dealer selling his wares. Do you really think it should be there? Bobby 03:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's purely a dealer site, no. (Interesting that nobody had removed it until now, though, cause I remember when it was posted about a month or two ago.)--chris.lawson 03:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It was back in February, about a half dozen were added by this anon. Only one was already removed, I removed the rest, the site is purely a dealer site. Home page is nothing but items for sale. Bobby 12:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hindenburg (airship)
Considering that the article includes a bunch of Simpsons episodes, Duck Tales, Family Guy, the Waltons, Stephen Colbert, etc., I don't see the addition of Seinfeld doing much harm. Removing all such stuff might be reasonable, but I don't see a reason to be selective about it. —Wookipedian 15:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Zantop Air Transport
Delete if you must, but the edit was worded fine because the crew members escaped. To delete the entire line because two article disagreed on the number of crew members? Hmm.. Mfields1 01:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I'll be able to come up with an addition to the list that is worded to your satisfaction. Mfields1 01:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CJR flight manual
Flight manual is available here User:Pedant 17:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable websites and CSD
With regards to this CSD tag: Websites are not speedyable under CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yelltome
I've indef blocked - it's clear it's a sockpuppet account of somebody who has some sort of problem with the userbox situation and/or some specific grudge against WhisperToMe. Thanks/wangi 23:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

adidas
I just noticed your removal of an incorrect title tag from adidias. I would like to ask is why do you think the current one is the correct title? I know many companies use a lowercase initial in their logo, and that doesn't mean they should be referred to as such, but if you look at adidas's site, they constantly refer to themselves as "adidas" even in plain text. This is generally sufficient on Wikipedia to warrant the tag, so I would like to know why you disagree. Thanks - Рэд  хот  17:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, what section are you referring to? There are a few about capitalisation, but none seem to be explicitly referring to situations like this. - Рэд  хот  14:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for that. - Рэд  хот  20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your IFR expertise
Your expertise on aviation issues was well applied in the Comair article. If you have time, the Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 article could use some attention, in relation to the possible role if IFR and transponder status in the crash. Plus, how does a little plane knock a big plane out of the sky and land safely? Thanks. Edison 17:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Lexington Tower
The memo says "the Eastern Terminal Service Director is requiring that facilities separate the radar function from the tower function" and the memo writer also said they would operate the tower as VFR during the hours of 12A to 630A. Are you trying to say the FAA Tower in Lexington changed their policy? They didn't set the policy (requiring facilities to separate radar and tower function) they were supposed to comply with the policy. Show me a link that shows a memo where they changed their policy after the accident. Mfields1 00:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation of mammal common names (Azerbaijani mouse-like hamster)
Please note that there is neither a consensus in the wikipedia community nor in the scientific community as to whether common names of mammals should be capitalised. I personally don't care and these pages can move back and forth all they want as long as it's done properly. I can almost guarantee that it will be moved back to the capitalised format within 6 months. If you are going to impose your opinion concerning this matter, though, please also fix all of the associated double redirects that this move creates. --Aranae 04:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ken W. Clawson
You asked me to site the source of his name is Ken W. Clawson and only Ken W. Clawson. Um... His full name is Ken Wade Clawson Sr. It doent need proof. You should prove that it isnt. Point. He was never Kenneth Wade Clawson and never will be.

Clawson, quit being such a bigot!
Dear Chris, your persistent reversals of VLJ article, to which you have contributed nothing but your prejudice, intolerance, egocentrism and ignorance, are consistent with behavior of a bigot. No matter how many times you revert something YOU don’t like (in violation of WP:3RR policy, as on Nov. 3rd), your opinion is no more right than that of people who don’t spend their lives sitting behind the computer policing wikipedia. So get a life and quit censoring articles to which you have had no substantive input. Bxb 08:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation added to Beavers in Al Sabo Preserve
Clawson, while rare, beavers do reside in Kalamazoo County, Michigan. Please see Discussion on Al Sabo Preserve page for further background. The citation, and a somewhat softer claim, have been placed on the original Al Sabo Preserve page. Sfjohnso

Lumber
Lumber redirects to Timber but it should be the other way around. --Poorman1 05:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

revert requests
would you explain why you reverted my edit? in my edit I reverted to last version by User: Weaken.--Poorman1 05:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you also keep reverting the improvements to the Embraer pages I have been editing!

ERJ vandal
Thanks for taking care of that this morning. I figured I'd have to take care of it, but found that you had fixed almost all of it. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not create a mess and I did not destroy other peoples hard work, in fact I made many improvements and added work as well. I did not delete anything. What exactly have I done which was so bad? In fact a lot of the changes I made have been left untouched. As regards to linking, what is wrong with having [Embraer ERJ 135] instead of [Embraer ERJ 145 family|Embraer ERJ 135] as long as a redirect is in place to the correct page? It is a lot easier to write the former! As I am fairly new to Wikipedia, can you tell me if there is a problem with redirects as such?

Any mess that was there was maybe because I had not finished editing yet or because other people were changing what I had done and were not finished themselves. I doubled checked everything I did by clicking thru the links back and forth and there was no bad linking by the time I had finished and I kept checking the 'what links here tool' to help me. During other people's efforts to revert my changes, you actually deleted some of my new content and if I had known how, I might of considered warning or blocking you etc. Just because you don't like changes people make does not make them vandals and give you the right to warn them. Nobody has told me what content I have deleted, only that I have altered links. It still amazes me how these changes came to your attention so quickly!

Flags
What's wrong with the addition of flags in the amrican revolutionary war article?

I am the person who changed put in the flags.Unfortunetly my ip address changes every time im on wikipedia.Anyway i dont agree.There is no explantation given as to why flags are not recommened.And besides that 'rule' was only invented by someone like me and you.It doesn't mean we have to follow it.I won't.

Judo
I'll leave the links in but they have been there for a long time. My general feelings are two fold: a) I think red links are ugly and b) usually when someone writes an article they add the links everywhere they think its relevant. I've also found instances where a red link actually could be fixed because of a difference in spelling (many of the Japanes Koryu were like that). I don't think they have much purpose over the long run. By the by - I think the Judo article has potential for Good Article status but needs some work mainly with citations. I wonder if its worth a nomination at the moment, opinion please. We just finished getting the Aikido article up to GA status and it still needs some work so I don't want to get too heavily involved with the judo article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PRehse (talk • contribs) 05:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Breaking Redirects
What do you mean by breaking redirects? I have changed some redirects and added new ones due to bad spelling and formating etc., but that is it. Please can you give me an example and explain why that is wrong. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.135.234 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Further to your last message, I still do not know fully what the problem is!

I think that I am the one doing the 'cleaning up', correcting mistakes and creating better links. I read articles I am interested in and sometimes make changes to correct errors etc. For instance I have changed a lot of 'ERJ-xxx' into 'ERJ xxx' (both links and plain text) as there is no hyphen according to the Embraer website. The only reason I can think of why there are redirects like [ERJ-145] is because mis-informed people created them in the first place. A lot of these type of changes have been left as they are, so I assume you approve, but I cannot understand your anger over some others. You say I have been 'breaking' redirects but it seems to be the opposite. I am sorry about the f or F situation on the main page, but I cannot understand anything else I have done wrong.

Sukhoi Superjet 100
In case you have not noticed already, I have changed a link to a redirect, to a link directly to an article page. Therefore the redirect is not being used anymore. However, I would of thought you would have done this long ago and then attacked the previous editor who created it and called them a 'vandal'. It seems you are just an Embraer anorak/nerd.

Embraer ERJ 135
You are destroying my work. You are blanking the page and putting in a redirect to another page. This is vandalism. You started reverting my work first and you should cease now. If there are any mistakes it is because I am not finished yet! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.14.12 (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Sorry, Chris. Wasn't around at the time. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST
Check the talk page for this.I have brought the flags issue over there.

Southern Airways Flight 932
Your expertise is requested at Southern Airways Flight 932. Basically, what we have is a page with information pertaining to the crash itself but no major details regarding the plane nor anything too specific. The page needs expansion in that regard, and perhaps a section divide into "Crash" and "Plane involved".

I am also considering splitting the Memorial page off onto its own since it is now quite lengthy (compared to what it was just a few days ago). Regards,  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
I have been capitalizing Orders in fleet tables as well as Entry Into Service. Since these parts of the table are only temporary, as well as necassary, I believe they should be capitalized. Please refrain from talking to me if your going to criticize me, because what I'm doing is widely used in Wikipedia, and unless if you want to edit all fleet tables in this online encyclopedia, I suggest you not tell me what to do with this as I have edited various tables from terrible to the way it should be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Golich17 (talk • contribs).

Delta Air Lines Flight 191
Greetings, Clawson. I noted you reversed an edit of mine related to an external link onthe DL 191 crash article. I took it to the Talk page there -- can you comment there perhaps? I have watched the video over and over and can't see what information it lends to this specific article; at the same time, it is promoting the services of a for-profit company (indeed, the few seconds of CVR audio in their animation that appears in one brief clip is obliterated by the voice-over narrator who is talking about how and why they did the video). Shall we figure this one out? Cheers, NYDCSP 00:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Northwest Airlines Date Rearrangement
Hello. I was wondering why you reverted the date edits. In America if I do recall, we put dates in Month/Day/Year order on a regular basis. In the U.K. and Europe, it is more common to put Day/Month/Year. Please justify why you reverted the edits for the dates. I did not yet revert the edits, because I wanted to see what you had to say.--Golich17 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for your justification. You're one of the few people who justify their answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Golich17 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

VLJ
Am I correct in thinking (i) There is no specific FAA reg promulgated coping specifically with VLJs? (ii) The term is being used informally by the industry for light jets which are certified for single pilot ops?

If I'm right the 10,000lb limit mentioned in the article intro is not a regulatory one, but it is phrased that way in the article. Also the word "extremely" seems inapproriate to me.

Paul Beardsell 07:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Old Aquaintance
I was having dinner with Mackensen this evening and your name came up, and I recalled that I have never bothered to let you know that you actually know me. I'm Daniel Huffman.

That is all.

Munion 02:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Beechcraft 1900
Thank you for your checking and edit on the 1900. I am really trying to make this a good article, and I appreciate your efforts.Mikepurves 05:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

_____

Thank you, Chris, for your catch on the 1900's maximum certificated altitude. You are correct that it is not a service ceiling. I have corrected the page accordingly, and commented to the 1900's "talk" page. Here is a copy of that comment for you to see. Thanks again! Mikepurves 22:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't have a Beech 1900 AFM in front of me, nor do I know performance figures for the aircraft, but I would be mildly shocked if FL250 is actually the aircraft's service ceiling (i.e., where its rate of climb drops to 100 FPM). Mike, can you confirm the exact wording (preferably backed up by a performance chart) in the AFM regarding this altitude?--chris.lawson 10:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, Chris. Thank you for the correction. The aircraft is certified to fly up to FL250, not above. The airplane certainly has the power and lift to operate at higher altitudes. The pressurization system on the -D only allows for 5.1psid, which results in a 9,125' cabin at FL250. In addition, there are additional certification requirements for the airplane if it operates above FL250, and crews must have high-altitude endorsements above FL250. I am correcting that section. Again, thank you for your catch. Mikepurves 20:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Chewbacca defense
Hi! Thanks for your message. I put a prod on Chewbacca Defense because it is a neologism, and, according to Wikipedia policy, articles on neologisms are not acceptable unless there are reliable third-party sources about the neologism. From the policy: To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Currently the only reliable source on there is the CNN source - and that's about the Simpson trial, making no reference to the Chewbacca Defense. Unless you (or someone else) can find reliable, third-party sources that discuss this neologism in detail, the article needs to be deleted. - Chardish 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

References needed
In order for the de Havilland Comet article to be treated as a serious piece of research, there has to be some check on the constant reversions and revisons that have occurred in the recent history of the article. There are many reputable sources of information available and editors should qualify their commentary with appropriate references, otherwise the work comes off as a flawed, less than neutral observation. I can appreciate that the Comet represents an iconic aviation programme that has been the subject of ongoing interest, however, scholarly, balanced research should be the watchword. Bzuk 22:23 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Mrld
Thanks for giving me a heads up about blanking my talk page. It won't happen again. Mrld 03:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hydroplane?
I don't mind that you put it back with a fact tag, but FWIW, Hydroplane makes no mention of this, and I did a google search, and everything that I could find referred to boats, not seaplanes. I am, of course, familiar with wheeled aircraft that hydroplane (and I've seen the results on the tires!), but that's a different term entirely. Are you sure we want to leave that in, especially since there's already a wikiarticle about the boats called hydroplanes? Akradecki 03:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Camino
I'd be grateful for a reply on Camino's talk. Matt J User 17:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so
Chris, that was a noble attempt at reason, but methinks you miss the whole point. --72.94.164.52 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deep Stealth Productions
Problem, though, I haven't been able to find any notable/credible third-party sourcing for it, just yet. No hits on Google News, no hits in IMDB, did find some hits on Google, but most seem to be self-published or made by related people. I'll keep looking, and if you find something, let me know, and I'll restore it (possibly relisting at AfD). On the other hand, you're also free to ask any other admins you know for their opinions, or to make a request at deletion review if you feel I'm being too unreasonable. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All I know is that Clawson's revert here was way out of line. Where do people get off censoring discussion like this?  --72.94.164.52 06:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ATR 72
Chris, sorry about that. I removed it from the ATR 42, and I thought I had taken it off of the 72 also. My bad. - BillCJ 19:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, just didn't want to stomp your edits :)--chris.lawson 19:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A first for me
My first user page vandalism. I suppose I should be honored. :-) Thanks for the cleanup!  Bobby  I'm Here, Are You There? 16:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In reference to Talk:Saudi Arabia
Thanks for your comments. I agree that the comments by many users were inappropriate, flaming, and included multiple personal attacks. But I think they should stay for two reasons: they aren't truly "vandalism" and Talk_page_guidelines states that discussions should not be deleted. Also, I think having this discussion easily referenced (without going back into the talk page history to find it) is very important. In this way, what users have said in the past can be easily found. Thanks! Let me know what you think. JeffreyN 16:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, good points. I have been trying to learn more about specific talk page policies. I archived it with a note saying others could delete it if they feel necessary. Though perhaps it won't be very necessary since the discussion is now hidden from general viewing (since it is not on the main talk page any longer). JeffreyN 16:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hi Chris, try to encourage the anon to participate on the Talk page and provide cited sources (not in edit summaries). Remember that any novel interpretation must not only be sourced, but must also meet the due weight requirement. If he persists and keeps reverting excessively without engaging in collaborative discussion, he may be blocked for 3RR violation or tendentious editing in general. Crum375 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandia's F-4
I agree with what you said in your edit summary about it not being a civilian usage. In fact, it wasn't flown at all, so that makes it harder to claim as "civilian" (seems like the minimum standard for that would be N-registry). Sandia used a gutted airframe mounted to a rocket sled on rails for the test, so it really should be moved elsewhere in the article...suggestions as to where? As for the fact tag, there's a video of the test (and it's quite impressive) on the Sandia website. Will add a ref for this. Akradecki 23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from 64.8.82.77
This IP address is a high school in Pittsburgh. There are an enormous number of idiots roaming around vandalising Wikipedia here. There's really no point in warning them, as they'll continue :( b0lt 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

John what is your bias here?
The red Baron was not jewish, deal with it. Give me the Jewish relatives name, or stop making this unfounded claim based on some source of which doesn't even have an ancestor at all, yet alone is biased towards hebrew influence in the west, and isn't even about the red baron. This is not how history is dealt with by serious people. You are making the claim, I'm simply saying you have no proof. Also, after reading your earlier posts on the same debate, don't play the anti-semite card when it isn't even happening at all. I read that whole thing, that guy wasn't being anti-semitic! Your clutching at straws! JohnHistory 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Your RfA
We can safely assume that your RfA is going to succeed. But I hope you're not going to just sit this out, I'd very much appreciate any comment or explanation you may have regarding the concerns I brought up, as would most certainly all other users interested in your RfA. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to spam your RfA page more than necessary, so I'm replying here. I'm not saying the book is "wrong" or unreliable, I just can't see how the precise quotation included in the article does back up the claim of Jewish ancestry. If you want to retain that bit, the burden of evidence lies with you to provide a source for this, which I can't recognize has happened so far. But this really was only my least relevant concern, had it been only for that, I wouldn't have switched to oppose. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not wishing to pile on concern, but I have to agree with Kncyu38 - the quotation was that the Baron was a "Non-Aryan", not that he was "Jewish". I'm no expert (by any means) but unless Non-Aryan=Jewish I can't see how this source can be used to imply Jewish ancestory?  Wouldn't a homosexual have been classed by the Nazis as a Non-Aryan?  The Rambling Man 09:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reply is weirdly evasive and somewhat off the mark. As far as I can see, nobody and certainly not me has cast doubt on the reliability of the cited book. For all I know, it may be flawless. The claim, as I understand it (but please correct me here, if I'm mistaken) is that the quotation taken from it is not suitable to back up the contested assertion of Jewish ancestry of von Richthofen. In other words: From what I can see, the reliability of the book per se is not in question, but the quality of the way it is used as a reference. In still other words: From what I can see, the burden of evidence still lies with anyone who would like to retain that assertion, because it was never adequately referenced in the first place. That's no fault of the book or its author, but of someone who is either comparing apples and oranges, or who hasn't tried to find a more suitable citation from the same book. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, as a compromise, the wording in the article could be changed to closer adhere to what the book's quoted part actually says. Currently, the article reads "Dagobert D. Runes claims he was of partial Jewish ancestry." while the quotation reads ""The famous Baron Manfred von Richthofen and his brother, Lothar, would have been liquidated by Hitler as non-Aryans."
 * In case there isn't another, more appropriate quote provided in "The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization", the article should in my opinion be changed to something like "Dagobert D. Runes claims he would have been liquidated by Hitler as non-Aryan." in order to truthfully reflect the source. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't have a copy of the book, so I assure you if my reply seemed evasive, it was unintentionally so. I outlined the argument as I saw it, and I see what you're saying. I'd be happy with the re-working you've done above, and it probably ought to be moved somewhere else, since it isn't really "Early life" any more.--chris.lawson 13:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. I'm going to put a proposal as to the exact wording and where to include it on the Richthofen talk page, waiting for consensus. Regards, —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As per my last post on the MvR talk page I am (at this point)in favor of deletion, or at least moving to a separate section. I agree that a published source if far superior to a blog entry on all accounts, but as other sources on MvR don't mention any Jewish ancestry that viewpoint still falls under "A very small minority".  Besides the minority viewpoint issue I also don't see it as all that relevant. Colincbn 14:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Manfred von Richthofen
Please tone down your remarks and read up on our civility policy, please. Scholarly discussion can be done without shouting and losing your temper. —210 physicq  ( c ) 04:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Listen to Me...
I said you accused him of being anti-semitic not me, and no he wasn't being that way. You are the one with the bad single source! Can't you see that? It isn't even on the Baron, nor does it give a jewish relatives name, and the quote doesn't even even say he was jewish. JohnHistory 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory. I am not going to just let this go. You are the one who needs the good source(s) with good quote(s) not me. So far you failed to do this. You can't just make someone jewish because you feel like it. JohnHistory 05:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Your RFA
Hi! I have closed your RFA as it did not meet the required level of community support at this time. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed RFA
I'm sorry you didn't get your RFA success. However, after looking at the way you handled the discussion about the alleged Jewish lineage of the Red Baron, it comes as no suprise to me that you didn't succeed. Not only do you fail to even come close to supporting your claim, but you fundementally misunderstand the spirit of the citation requirement. ANY printed source isn't good enough. For instance, Racist publications such as "Aryan Nation" frequently put forth absurd claims, BUT they are printed. Should those be required to be combated with links to good sources? No, they shouldn't bc the Aran Nation is not a legitmate source. The fact that the ONLY indication that the Red Baron was Jewish comes from a small mention in a book that isn't even about him is not enough to justify it as a good source; especially when his numerous bio's have not even mentioned this as a possiblity. Those are good sources...your single quote isn't.

Perhaps, more than anything, your arrogant tone and hostile approach to your fellow editors was more of a warning to the community than your blatent flaunting of the citation rules, but we shall see if you handle this constructive critisim in a manner that will convince the community that you would not just block people bc they disagree with you. Good luck, it's going to be a hard road for you.

Oh, I almost forgot your extremely childish behavior on the Star Wars Edir War. While hilarious and funny enough to make me laugh at 325 in the morning, the fact still remains that it was funny only because of it's absuridity. Absuridity steming mainly from your vitrolic and immature posts. Chairman Meow 07:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)