User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 11

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

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

Thanks!!!
Well folks, thanks to your reviews and comments, the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band is now a featured article on Wikipedia. It should take a day or so to update, but it's a done deal. Thanks for the help,. — BQZip01 — talk 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Air Methods, Corp.
User:Dhaluza has created the Air Methods, Corp. article. In time, I'll work on adding more info using the sources you gave me. Also, be sure to check out the "See also" section, and see if that is a notable page listed. - BillCJ 06:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Bill, missed this question when I read over my messages...IMHO, yes it's notable, given the amount of media coverage, not just of this crash, but air ambulance crashes in general. Given the politics in the affected county, this is also going to be the subject of recurring media discussions. This one was very, very personal for me, though, so I'm biased and my opinion doesn't really count.  AK Radecki Speaketh  19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan, yes, I agree it's notable, for the same reasons. I was being a bit fecicious, just wanted to make sure you saw the article, and didn't miss what it was about in the flurry of trying to catch up on what you've missed while you've gone. I asked Dhaluza if he could look into into for me to check the notability, and maybe have a short article to surprise you when you got back. He did a great job, and went far beyond what I had intended for now, which is a good thing! The link on needing a trauma center for the High Desert region is the clincher on notability. I'm sure it's not that easy to read it, but I hope Dhaluza did them justice in his coverage. If there's anything you want me to address in particular there, but you can't for COI or other reasons, just ask me, and I'll do what I can. - BillCJ 20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It was, indeed, a pleasant surprise! The only thing I can think of at the moment is add Arch to the See Also.  AK Radecki  Speaketh  23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the section on possible "bribes" in the San Bernadino County award. Do you have any sources you'd like me to look at?


 * Sorry about the wrong pic on the 2006 Mercy Air 2 accident article. I confused N401MA and N410MA, so I must be dyslexic! I saw your other pics on BillCJ's page, and put one on the Safety of emergency medical services flights page. If you have some other refs on the controversy, I could add them for balance. There should have been something on the final resolution. Also did they ever permit a second operator? Dhaluza 10:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm back
I'm back from my wal in the redwoods...though it'll take a day or two to get back up to speed. Thanks, Chris, for taking care of the above matter.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Velarus
Alan, can you look at Velarus? I added a prod, but the creator removed it (see User talk:Gaucho69 for his explanation). What should we do next? AfD? I really don't think this is notable yet, and have found nothing on google related to it exceot the company's site. - BillCJ 18:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted it as spam. Could easily justify A7 - nn corp - as well, or even No Context. I'm sure I'll get flack for this move, but given that there's nothing published on it, and that the only link is to a seldom-visited personal website, this has all the earmarks of someone trying to promote their pet invention/better mousetrap and using Wikipedia to do said promotion. Thanks for pointing this one out!  AK Radecki Speaketh  19:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - BillCJ 19:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war accusation
Alan, could you be so kind and look at this talkpage entry? It's again User:M Van Houten whom you've met few months ago in a little bit long and exhausting fixed width image dispute. This time I'm accused for starting edit war and I'm a little bit... well, I don't like it.

If you look at history of the G4M or history of the G8N articles you'll see that I've entered Operators sections and rising sun flags long time ago and in fact User:M Van Houten is the guy who is doing his reverts against other users. For example this revert in G8N article is his fifth revert in short time. I really have no idea what to do because I still remember his last statement made on your talk page. Any ideas? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 20:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Piotr, thanks for the note. I have to confess I'm quite confused by the debate, and I guess that comes from a lack of hard references. In the debate that's referenced on the template talk page, both sides make good arguments (and even missed some...the flag with the sun and no rays actually wasn't officially the national flag until much later). However, what really needs to be done is some good references found one way or another, besides web sites. I would be curious to what the hard print encyclopedias have to say on the issue, as well as other universally-recognized authorities. For the time being, I'd suggest opening yet another discussion on the subject, either at the military history project or the aircraft project, and see if other folks have sources that can be added to the discussion.  AK Radecki Speaketh  21:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alan, I'm afraid there is no hard written English references which couldn't be questioned by M Van Houten. There is a lot of photos of Japanese soldiers using raising sun flag during WWII era as well as propaganda posters from that era which in my opinion are enough proof that this flag was used in these times. If you look on this propaganda poster you'll see Italian crowned flag. If artist painted correctly this difficult variant 🇮🇹 of Italian flag instead of 🇮🇹 so why he would paint incorrect Japanese flag? There is much more rising flags used on US propaganda posters (or these ones) and I don't think that all artists were stupid or illiterated to use inproper flag. Your opinion about "white" flag as unoficial is right, when you look at the Flag of the World page, you'll read following info:
 * On March 25, 1931 the Imperial Diet attempted to legislate the Hinomaru as the official National Flag and also its official specifications; it passed the House of Commons, but did not go through the House of Peers.
 * I don't want to bring all arguments here, it's not the proper place. I'm afraid that debate with this guy is impossible - old debate about fixed width images shows it quite well. He started edit war with reverting edits of two other users to state which is correct from his own point of view. Please look closer and you'll see senseless Empire of Japan links. Note that we don't use full names of countries in Operators section and we write Poland or United Kingdom, not Republic of Poland or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I don't see any reason why Japan should be except from that convention. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I hear you. I really think the argument could go either way. But, until at least an attempt to discuss it on the aircraft article's talk page - or one of the project pages - is at least attempted, there's not much that can be done about it. WP:CONSENSUS says that rather than edit warring, discussions should be raised. I know there's already been discussion at the template talk page, but that is such an obscure location that it didn't the proper exposure. I'd suggest the aircraft project page, with a note on the military history project page so that the discussion can be kept in one place. Make your case like you've done here, and we'll see what happens. I'd prefer to remain somewhat neutral in all this, so that if needed, I can exercise my admin tools if things get out of hand.  AK Radecki Speaketh  22:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alan, thanks for advice. Is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content good place for such disscussion? If yes I'll write there soon. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 06:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd put it on the main project page...not everyone in the project has the secondary pages watchlisted, so they might not see it, and this discussion needs to have the wider input of the whole project.  AK Radecki Speaketh  23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tagging
Seems like someone's trying to make a point. I would imagine it was indeed over that speedy of the organization article previously. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Orange County Transportation Authority
Hi. The administrator user:Seraphimblade rapidly deleted articles that I was involved with based upon the following:

"The reason I deleted these is indeed because they were intended to promote. Promotional doesn't necessarily mean it's promoting a for-profit corporation—I've seen ad articles here for everything from charities to open-source software.

"None of these statements are whatsoever attributed to any type of reliable source which says any such thing. Nor are any secondary sources cited at all. Lacking that, they basically just appear to be glowing editorials. Whether or not it was your intent, and without intent on my part to cause any offense, the articles quite honestly looked like they could have come straight from the organizations' PR departments.

"If there are secondary, independent sources which have covered these organizations, it still may be appropriate to have articles on them. (We do require that substantial amounts of material independent of the subject exist, sources published by the subject or those closely affiliated with it are not enough.)"

Just so you know, it's not a bad faith nom. More than a week ago, I asked that admin what the difference was between those pages and Orange County Transportation Authority. Without a reply, I took it that there was none.

Can you explain how Orange County Transportation Authority differs? Both are multi-county agency government agencies. Both explain the services that they provide. Yet one was deleted, and the other stays because "it's a public agency".

Thanks --Igoldste 15:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I'm not going to respond to questions about another admin's actions. If you have issues with user:Seraphimblade, go discuss it with him. If you disagree with his actions, I would advise you to ask him to revisit the subject. He might change his mind, he might not. I've had people ask me that, and sometimes I stand by my decision, and other times I realize I was in error...we're all humans, we all make mistakes, it's just that as admins, our mistakes are much more visible and much more frequently second-guessed. I haven't taken a look at the article he deleted, and won't unless he asks me for a second opinion. If you still disagree with his response, you are welcome to take the issue to Deletion review.


 * Second, what I can tell you is why I didn't delete Orange County Transportation Authority. I focus a fair amount of my admin time to fighting spam, and I've developed a short list of spam give-a-way indicators. When I read through the article you nominated, however, none of the alarms went off. The article isn't promoting OCTA, it's clearly about OCTA, from a neutral, outside point of view. It doesn't use glowing, promotional terms, it isn't written by the agency's PR department, it's not trying to convince me to come to OC and ride the bus. It's written in dry, encyclopedic language, as it should be.


 * Lastly, I'm not going to judge whether your nomination was good-faith or bad-faith, but it does seem to be an attempt to make a point, as it's the only article you've ever tagged for CSD, and it's on the heels of your disagreement about the other article. On this I will strongly caution you: just because you disagree with what another admin has done, don't go trying to delete the hard work of other folks who are innocent in the dispute. If I was one of the major contributors to the OCTA article, I would feel a bit offended that you chose to try to delete my hard work just to prove a point...that, quite simply, was unkind. And, quite honestly, I think you owe that little segment of the community an apology.


 * If you have any other questions on the subject, feel free to ask.  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll begin by apologizing because of the way that my action was perceived. I had not intended to offend anyone.  While I've only made minor contributions, the edits that I have made have always been made with the best of intentions.  The reason that this was my first CSD tag, was that I had not yet looked extensively at any other articles with what I had understood to be the rules for deletion.  I appreciate your no-spam link and see from it why OCTA would not qualify.  I also now see that the rules being used to determine spam may not be universally accepted, so I will leave further CSD tagging for others.


 * --Igoldste 11:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Spyware terminator
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Spyware terminator. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cableguytk 04:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Schweizer promotional links
Alan, can you double-check my deletions of "promotional links "here and here? One link has been there awhile, and the second one was added today to each page, apparently to make sure their site is promoted too. These sites appear to be geared toward sales and service, and are not about the aircraft types. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse your removal. Definitely spam.  AK Radecki Speaketh  19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it was, per your recent;y-posted "spam-detector" guidelines, but given that you're in a related industry, I just wanted to make sure the sites didn't have some value that I might have missed. - BillCJ 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My dear Alan
My dear Alan, I'm sorry I couldn't watch over your userpage while you were away for reasons you already know. There's much I'd like to tell you, but I'll save that for tomorrow and I'll do it by email. I've kept my mind occupied all day replying the incredibly kind messages I've received, but not a single email - and trust me, I have "heaps" of them sitting at my inbox! But, as a father, you'll understand that, until the problem is truly over, I won't be myself again... but I won't get ahead of myself. Your kind and warm wishes and thought are very dear and special to me. Have a great hug from this friend of yours, and talk to you tomorrow - and thank you, I can't say that too many times. Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd Nasa talk page edits
Alan, could you look at this diff and this one? I'm not quite sure what the intention is here, but I certainly didn't write those comments. It's wierd, because they've copied some lines from my posts, but I certainly wouldn't have written the rest of it! I want to call it vandalism, but as I've got no other edits by this user to go on, I'm not quite sure, so I've not warned them yet. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by this diff, and this one, I'm sure it's vandalism. Will warn for each incident. - BillCJ 03:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My solution: .  AK Radecki Speaketh  03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! - BillCJ 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Contingent Workforce Management Sandbox
Hello,

Please add any comments in the discussion page on the article I am creating.

User:TheBackpack/sandbox

Thanks, --TheBackpack 13:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, the draft is looking good. I've made some comments at User talk:TheBackpack/sandbox. Keep up the good work!  AK Radecki Speaketh  13:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have finished up some major editing on the rough draft, added the rest of the references which I will reformat accoring to the citation templates that you had linked. If you could retrieve just a brief definition from the PER and employer of record articles, so I may add them to the CWM article, that would be great. Please take a second look at the article, and add any other comments, and suggestions on how to intergrate the contingent workforce article into it. Also, how do I publish an article from my sandbox?

Thanks again,

--TheBackpack 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Just a quick note while I'm on break at work...will have to wait a few hours to have time to take a deeper look, but I just found this: Contingent Workforce Outsourcing, which has been proposed to be merged into Contingent Workforce; since it's already proposed, maybe it's an ideal time to combine all 3. I'll also get the other two articles at lunch or this afternoon for you.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great! Thanks for your help.

--TheBackpack 15:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I finished the CMW article and I feel pretty good about how it looks. Just want to confirm that there are no policy violations and that everything is done in good taste. 2 questions: How do I publish an article from a Sandbox? How do I integrate CMW with Contingent workforce? Thanks. --TheBackpack 17:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Answers on the sandbox talk page. Before I can answer about how to publish, there's a couple of questions there that need to be answered, as the answers to them dictate the method to be use.  AK Radecki Speaketh  22:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the comments in my sandbox User:TheBackpack/sandbox. --TheBackpack 14:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta vandal
Alan, could you look at these contributions? This editor has been adding junk to the Atlanta, Georgia page for the past few days. He has been wared a few times. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Someone else has blocked him for the time being. - BillCJ 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep an eye out 48 hours from now...Also, if you haven't already, there's a vid in an email from you showing a first-hand view of brownouts.  AK Radecki Speaketh  19:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will. I got the e-mail, but haven't viewed it yet. Have to go grocery shopping now, so will look at it later this evening, if I don't forget. - BillCJ 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reed Business Information
Any thoughts on how I could clean up that page. If I removed all the external links there really isn't much of an article left. I would agree the company is notable, I just tagged it as spam because all that is in that page is essentially advertisments for its various websites. So in the context of the content I think it is spam, even if the subject is worth. Should I just delete the content except for the very top summary stuff and mark it as a stub? You should check out the individual mag pages as well as a template someone created with all the mag links in them. Its a huge link farm, i'm sure its bringing up their google cred. pw 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd trim out most of the links, get rid of the bolding, but a brief overview plus a list of the company's publications would be a good start. Given its size, I'm sure the company has attracted external media coverage, especially in business publications.  AK Radecki Speaketh  20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just checked back...great job on the cleanup  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

CXtec
Please take a look at the creating user's talk page before you remove my deletion tag. The page has been created and deleted multiple times and the user has been warned as well for doing so and still insists on creating it and related adverts to the same company. Regardless I don't see anything notable about the company, but the user is also trying to abuse the system. pw 20:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I disagree. The spam CSD includes the statement that it "would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". Yes, this article is a bit spammy, but it's got refs and an assertion of notability, so it could be argued to meet WP:CORP, and it wouldn't take that much work to clean it up and get rid of the parts that are a bit over-the-top. This has only been deleted once, for not asserting notability. It asserts it now (industry awards, etc, multiple refs). If you strongly disagree, that's fine, I'd just suggest sending it to AfD.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed width images issue again
Hi Alan, once again we have to battle fixed width images. Please look at this edit] in PZL MD-12 article. I've talked with User:Pibwl earlier on his talkpage (in Polish) and tried to explain him why we are not using fixed width images. I've sent him link to your long dispute with User:M Van Houten and explained that we will edit such images to thumbnails. It seems that this user is trying to force his own rules by uploading photos with senseless license "use with no less, than 250px width". I've moved this new photo into Aircraft infobox where it meets the "250px width" criteria and thumbnailed old photo into main text so our rules are preserved ;o) Unfortunately I'm afraid that uploading photos with such strange license can be continued and we have to think what to do with such images. I see only two options - leave it in main text against our own rules or remove from main text when it can't be placed into Aircraft infobox. What do you think about it? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 08:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I guess one way to get his attention will be to delete the image, as you can't put such a restriction on the image on Wikipedia. I'll look into it. Was there any progress on the flag issue?  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  13:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is a free equivlanet, there is no reason to use a copyrighted image used with restrictions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pibwl is doing a lot of good work with Poland related articles and I hope he will not leav use. I guess that he wanted to check how strict are our rules and it seems he got good answer. Guys, thanks a lot. As for flag issue I didn't wrote anywhere due to lack of spare time. I'll try to write sth more after my holidays - I need to rest far from my PC and Croatia seems to be good choice. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 17:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I'll just refrain from uploading my photos of aircraft in cases, when 180px is too small. I really hate photos, that look like stamps and you can't see anything without enlarging - especially, that aircraft are usually long and low. I believe, that my work on a photo sometimes deserves something better, than 180px, that is the reason of my behaviour. I also don't believe, that any of common Wikipedia readers (not editors) changes his thumbnails preferences - anyway, you have to be logged to do so?. I think, that derivative works are allowed, even on a given condition, but as you wish. I'll change the licence of questioned works. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Air France Flight 4590
You might be interested in Talk:Air France Flight 4590. I've posted a note on the Accident TF talk page, but just wanted to make sure you caught it. WP:UNDUE and WP:RS seem pretty clear, but we might want to clarify how they apply to accidents/incidents, and set up a few guidles too. - BillCJ 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Gulfstream G200
I finally got the Gulfstream G200 page up, though it text body still needs to be done. (I'm woking on that at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Gulfstream G200.) I took so long in getting the page up that the redirect from IAI Galaxy was deleted a month ago cause it went to a blank page! Anyway, I'm redoing my strategy on new articles, and trying to go ahead and put up the stubs, while still working on the text in the sandboxes. It would be nice to find an editor who loves to write copy, but doesn't have enough projects to do! I can handle the twaeking, so even someone who wasn't familar with aviation topics would do. Just need someone to rewrite sources into something we can use. Is there a request page for editor help on stuff like this? - BillCJ 00:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of a page for specifically that, but I was kinda thinking along the same lines, and realized that such work is a wonderful way of learning the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia, so I've put out a couple feelers to folks looking for adoption. One looks like a teen who's interested in aviation, so if he takes me up on it, that might be a possibilty right there. We'll see. Great job on the G200! Oh, did you see the incident info I put on Tanker 910? That happened right above town! I'm amazed that they elected to fly all the way back to VCV to make their emergency landing, when we had a 12K foot runway right there. Besides overflying us, there was EDW, too, so I'll bet the FAA is gonna have a thing or two to say. Anyway, some of the media wire stories for the tanker incident are also mentioning an injured firefighter who was airlifted...we've now done 2 flights related to the fire (the other one, a guy who was trying to evac his horses...was bit by one of them before the horse fell on him...poor dude!). I'm rambling now....  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at your blurb - interesting indeed! Hmm, the adoption angle is interesting. I've seen a few new WP:AIR editors, myself included be "unofficially" adopted by other [project editors in that they've helped the new users, and answered question, and so forth. Piotr's a good example, and does a pretty good job now for the most part. His computer programming experience helps alot too. Maybe the Air or Aviation project could set up an adopt-a-user program within the project, as there are a nuumber of things unique to our project which take awhile to learn, even for users with some Wiki experience. - BillCJ 00:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

IAI Astra
Alan, can you move User:BillCJ/Sandbox/IAI Astra to IAI Astra over a redirect? You can leave the sandbox there as redirect, as I'll be copying an earler version with a source dump back there to work on later. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done!  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Many tanks, mon! - BillCJ 01:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

PEO draft
I've uploaded what I have so far on the rewrite of Professional employer organization. It's located at User:BWatkins/peodraft. I'll continue to work on it as I have time. BWatkins 04:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow...looks great. Well written, well referenced. You might want to coordinate stuff with User:TheBackpack...see the conversation higher up on this talk page under the heading "Contingent Workforce Management Sandbox". You two are working on complementary projects, and the end result would be much enhanced by you to coordinating your work.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  05:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help and encouragement. The finished draft is now in place. BWatkins 00:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Adoptee Seeks Help
What do I need to do so other aliases redirect to the bio I have worked on?

In order to be able to add the time and date after my signature, do I have to do this manually or is there some sort of shortcut? Thanks!

I hope you find this - this page is SO long :) Tanyawade

Boink!
Email alert! Belated one, in fact, as I wrote to you a few hours ago ;) Love you sweetie!  P h a e d r i e l  - 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of LiquidHub entry
Hi, you deleted the LiquidHub entry as spam and as a copyvio (I assume that's a copyright violation). I don't believe it's either. Since it's the first thing I've added to Wikipedia, I'd like to understand what was in violation so I can add the entry back w/the necessary changes.

Thanks.

Ctwise 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. Sorry your first contribution ran into difficulty. I hope it doesn't discourage you. The text, as far as I could see, was almost word for word (with the exception of "they" replacing "we" in the first paragraph) copied from the company's website. If you look right below the "save" button in the edit screen, in bold text, it says, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." Virtually all corporate websites are copyrighted...as is LiquidHub's, therefore to place their text in Wikipedia is a copyright violation. That was the primary reason it was deleted.


 * The secondary reason was as spam. The lead paragraph, especially, was written in the tone of an advertising brochure for promoting the company, which is natural since it was taken directly from the company's website. We are not a place to promote companies. Corporate entries, as well as all entries, need to be written in a dry, academic, encyclopedic tone, since we are, first and last, an encyclopedia.


 * The third reason it was deleted, though I didn't include this in my edit summary, was that it did not assert any "notability". Now this term has a particular meaning on Wikipedia, in that it refers to a set of standards that must be met for a corporation to be deemed worthy of having an encyclopedia article. Those standards can be found at: Notability (organizations and companies).


 * I hope this helps. I'm curious, though...what's your connection to the company? If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to drop me a note.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I work for them. I noticed that other companies in the same space had pages so I believed that our company also was notable enough. We've been mentioned in the papers and won awards - not sure if any of that meets the notability standards for secondary sources? If it does, I'd like to get it undeleted so I can change the text. - Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctwise (talk • contribs)


 * Ok, that presents a serious problem. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines. You really shouldn't be editing an article about the company you work for. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your company. You are most welcome to edit unrelated articles, though.  AK Radecki  <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:User:Darkeffekt
I'm in the mood for some vandal fightin' :). <font color="#084B8A">Darth <font color="#008080">Griz98  01:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bell 201
I finally got enough data for the Bell 201 article. I was going to ask you to move over a redirect which I was pretty sure I had made a long time ago, but it wasn't there. I didn't realize it till after I tried to move it - another mysterious redirct deletion - Strange! I'm still working on the main text at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 201. - BillCJ 02:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone had vandalized the redirect, and it had been deleted as nonsense.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  13:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking. - BillCJ 15:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Custerwest
Thank you! I was beginning to think nobody was paying any mind to this user. Can I come to you if the users disruptions (many more than just the 3RR) continue? Cheers! Murderbike 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as there's clear violation, sure. I'm not taking sides in the dispute, though.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me also, & also for thirding the caution on HanzoHattori for his baiting of Custerwest on CW's talk page. --Yksin 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

AK, I'm personally not so worried about the content dispute, just the clear violations that we nonadmins couldn't deal with ourselves. Thanks! Murderbike 17:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Douglas Hubbard
I said all along that I was fine with deleting the Douglas Hubbard article (I wrote it about me). But you should also change the link to my name from the Applied Information Economics page. That's what started all this, otherwise, I wouldn't have written the autobiography. I'm not making any further changes to the AIE page because I'm following COI guidelines.Hubbardaie 19:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I also responded to your points on the COI NB.Hubbardaie 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Question
If you could please answer this back on my discussion page?

But you flagged a game page as Spam. ~DB:I~ to be exact. How is that page flagged as spam when there are plenty of other games clearly on wikipedia. My apologies for sounding rude with that comment, but I am the owner of DB:I as "Blaze Skyfire" in-game. and I was still continuing on working on the reference to the game, that simply being the Encyclopedia of Terms for the time being.
 * Your article was originally tagged as spam by another editor because it appeared to be a random collection of information that was put there to drive readers to the website link. As this is an online game (meaning a website), I deleted it under A7 as it's completely non-notable, doesn't assert notabilty, doesn't provide any references. In reality, it could have just as easlily been deleted as "no context", because it really wasn't an article that explained anything. Wikipedia is not a game guide, it's not a social networking site, a collection of fancruft, in short, there's nothing in the "article" that meets the requirements of Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia! Please respect that.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  15:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, it was originaly deleted because our copyright was kept there, the information grabbed was directly out of the game, seing as it was the encyclopedia of the game, found it would be suiting to put it on wikipedia The online Enclyopedia. However, Thank you for the reply.

Bell D280
Alan, does this pic remind you of anything, especially from the sponsons and cabin forward? - BillCJ 06:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow...I wasn't familiar with this. I had heard some vague references to a melding of designs, but I didn't know that it had gone this far. Nice find!

I've not been able to find much else on the net about it (http://www.luftfahrt-eisenach.de/Bell-Helicopter/B-205/209-Reihe.htm, with translation http://www.luftfahrt-eisenach.de/Bell-Helicopter/B-205/209-Reihe.htm), but it looks like an late-60s/early-70s design. Given the 222 dates from from 74, the resemblance is definetly remarkable. I guess Bell really did design Airwolf! - BillCJ 15:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Custerwest is back as anon ip
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Washita_River&diff=141767010&oldid=141766174 --HanzoHattori 08:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well.

Custerwest, just after his previous block expired, came back and did this again, on the same page he was blocked for disrupting.


 * 1) (as anon ip)
 * 2) (6 min later as Custerwest)
 * 3) (as Custerwest)
 * 4) (as Custerwest)

As you see here, he was perfectly aware of what he's doing.

Yes, it was a copypasta. Mmmm, delicious copypasta. --HanzoHattori 11:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

From the post on custerwest

 * 1) 1 Thanks for your message
 * 2) 2 Most of the footnotes were removed by HHT - it's hard to find what's the good in the "consensus" area with people gathering without any care of accuracy and making the decision to rewrite an entire chapter of history with their own opinion.
 * 3) 3 Im' published in France.
 * 4) 4 I tried to write to HHT to find the holy consensus, but it's what he wrote:

""Troubles with army", yeah. What a troublemakers... I don't know if you noticed (you seem to have hard times to understand many things), but you are actually in minority here (and no one really cares who you proclaim to be, "doctor in history" or the king of Scotland), it's not really about how much you agree to be changed or added to "your article" (no such thing, and we agreed to start with the other version), original research is right out, and you was blocked specifically for the repeated disrupting of this article (came back for more?). If you don't understand, read again. --HanzoHattori 09:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)" (see Battle of the Washita discussions)

It's obvious that his only concern is a fight and not the article. It's really childish and damaging the whole article and the ongoing researchs to improve it.Custerwest 10:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Responding to both above messages
I researched this lates round of accusations and the resulting diffs: These comments, besides being posted here, are being posted at the users' pages and the article page. Please stop fighting the Battle of the Washita and start cooperating about its article.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  15:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This has already been posted at 3RR, and Hanzo has already been blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, an action to which I concur (I probably would have added some time for incivility, but them's the breaks).
 * 2) The diffs provided by Hanzo are culled through, and actually represent a series of edits to footnote and source the text. I don't see a 3RR violation here.
 * 3) Once Hanzo's block is up, if there's a massive removal of material by him, without first detailed discussion of why each of the items is removed, I will protect the page and I will issue vandalism blocks.
 * 4) There's no hurry in writing this or any article. You can take the time to discuss the points with civility like professional academics.

Hi Akradecki, there are currently 40 footnotes with sources and adds on the Battle of the Washita, including HanzoHattori's numbers taken from Army Center Command (in fact, what he always wanted to have). I really tried to move on.

Nevertheless, HHT asked Biophys (whose's known to be HHT's friend) to reverse the article (footnotes and texte totally removed). Please protect the Washita page. Altough I tried to bury the hatchet with HHT by putting his numbers in the infobox (despite the fact that his source isn't strong), it's isn't enough and he doesn't seem ready to move on. Please protect the page.

History of the page:

(cur) (last) 17:50, 1 July 2007 83.78.61.58 (Talk) (27,417 bytes) (cur) (last) 14:53, 1 July 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (17,202 bytes) (rv HanzoHattori at 10:29, 1 July 2007.) (cur) (last) 13:01, 1 July 2007 Custerwest (Talk | contribs) (27,417 bytes) (correction infobox: National Park Service's list of KNOWN casualties (dead people whose name is known)) Custerwest 17:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive vandalism on Battle of the Washita
Footnotes and text are removed by Murderbike at this very moment on the Battle of the Washita. Every footnote and page by the National Park Service are deleted. Please protect the page.

(cur) (last) 18:14, 1 July 2007 Murderbike (Talk | contribs) (17,214 bytes) (→The battle - clarification) (cur) (last) 18:09, 1 July 2007 Murderbike (Talk | contribs) (17,202 bytes) (old version) Custerwest 18:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
To clutter up your page with this, but Custerwest is reverting to versions not consensed upon by several users (it isn't just HanzoHattori trying to deal with this), without using the talk page, and throwing around "vandalism" accusations. It feels pointless to keep dealing with this article in this manner, some sort of outside help is needed. Any suggestions? Murderbike 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comments on your talk page, and especially on the article's talk page. When you remove large chunks of properly referenced text and supporting references, especially references such as NPS sources, that just isn't appropriate. If you dispute the text, rather than remove it, add text with the opposing view along with supporting references.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I don't really want to defend what I did, but I will try to explain a bit. The edits that concerned "removing large chunks" of text, were reverts to versions that had been agreed upon by at least HanzoHattori, Yksin and myself. It wasn't just removal of text, like "blanking" or whatever. The second one, I even tried to compromise, and leave in the infobox with all the cited stats, just removing sections that had almost nothing to do with the section of the article, as discussed on the talk page. OK, so I know the editting got a little hot, and I was really frustrated by the actions of Custerwest, and lack of action by admins, or hardly anyone else to keep that page from becoming a horrible piece of garbage. I'll keep an eye on what I do, and try even harder to be diplomatic so that articles don't get locked up in horribly unencyclopedic versions. Thanks for stepping in as you have. Murderbike 17:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Totally Disputed and Expert tags on Lucifer and Gameel Al-Batouti
I got your messages which briefs that I can't place tags without relevant explaination on the talk page, I didn't know that; as I'm a new wikipedian and I'm having a little trouble understanding how things work here.

But I have added my reasons for tagging on the discussions of both articles Lucifer and Gameel Al-Batouti. I think that this is enough, please help me further if I'm missing something else, and I thank you for your guidance. ñÅñÑü ( Talk 20:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Move request
Alan, when you can, can you move Fokker F70 to Fokker 70? THis is the official name per this link. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Done. - BillCJ 04:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Another note on that pesky Battle of Washita River
I guess this is by way of at least giving you an update on the opinion of one of the more "moderate" editors on this article. Another thanks on your interventions to bring an end to the edit war. I've just bowed out of any further work on it for the time being, as it's become clear to me that HanzoHattori is just as uninterested as Custerwest in learning & abiding by Wikipedia polices such as WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, & WP:SOURCE. He appears to believes that if a modern source doesn't word for word substantiate or confirm an earlier source, that means the earlier source should be entirely excluded. As I haven't got the time or energy to teach someone who doesn't seem to have a clue about how historians work (nor does Custerwest seem to, despite his numerous protestations to the contrary), I've given up on wasting my time. It's impossible to come to consensus with such a person. Maybe HanzoHattori will wake up once he realizes that his stubbornness means that the article will continue to languish in a fully protected state in a form dominated by the POV of his nemesis Custerwest. Personally if I was an admin, I'd be tempted to overreach my powers to ban both of them permanently... just out of my own frustration. Guess it's good I'm not an admin. I congratulate you on your patience, & am very very glad to have admins like you around. Regards, Yksin 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cats/sandbox
Thanks for sorting out the cats in my sandbox - I'm experimenting with reducing a large article, and I copied the whole thing over. I see my sandbox is also a featured article as well! Totnesmartin 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have two sandboxes for my one cat - and he spends half the day outside! - BillCJ 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, those beasts are certainly hard to herd!  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  21:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction - I don't "have" a cat - I am head-of-staff to one cat, plus a do freelance work for a couple of strays. - BillCJ 02:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:75.110.142.31
Alan, can you look at user:75.110.142.31 ? He has been removing content from the EA-6 Prowler]] page with no explanation for the last few days (3 times, I warned ont he last 2). Thanks. - BillCJ 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If he does it again, let me or Chris know, and we'll block.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  21:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BillCJ 00:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

More reasons I'm not ready to be an admin
Alan, could you look at Template talk:2007 NL East standings, and see if there is anything official you can do in the case? (Even if it is against my position!) It should be explained there, but if not, feel free to ask questions. (By the way, we're both over the 3RR on that page, but I'll settle for him not being blocked if I'm not blocked either ;) )

You should know that user:Ksy92003 is only 16, and in my opinion conducts a reign of terror in the Baseball project, reverting everythign he disagrees with. Although he is claiming a consensus on the date inclusion issue, he has yet to produce a link for the discussuion, yet remembers what it said! (LONNNNNG section - I evetually found it,a nd will take up the issue there. - BillCJ 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Just so you know, I ALWAYS check the date when I look at sports standings, and I don't see how this should be an exeption. I asked about this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball page several hours ago, but despite regular activity on the page, have had no responses as yet. Thanks again, and I'll live with whatever action you decide to take, or whatever you recommend tht i do here. - BillCJ 00:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there's anything official I can do at this point. Personally, I agree with your, that anything that is date-sensitive needs to somehow tell the reader that it is updated. I'm not worried about the 3RR at this point. Since you're re-opening the discussion at the linked place, I'll hold off on saying anything further and see if the consensus can be reached there. Meanwhile, if you need to get away from it all for a while, I did just that...got way from aviation and admining for a while and actually wrote an article (what a novel concept!), on a ship, no less...and it could probably use a copyedit. If you're inclined, it's SS Suevic.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A ship!!?? Traitor! J/K. Well, I've got at least 10 copter pages in my sandbox that need soem writing doen (the research is already there), if you want to get back to your "roots". :)

Btw, do you know of a guideline or policy regariding date-sensitive material somehwere? - BillCJ 00:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know of one, actually. I know WP:NOTNEWS could be seen to apply, since that could be considered current news, but I'm really stretching here.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am really getting sick of this 16-year-old kid running a whole project Alan. I am trying to continue the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles, but he won't participate. Now he's reverting my changes per [this diff]. I spent alot of time today moving the daily details out of the main article to the Season page so we don't have to keep changing the main page everytime the standings change, and he' reverting me! How do I file an RFC? - BillCJ 05:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hear you. In looking over his edits, it looks like he's trying to be a junior sports reporter or something. If the overall baseball project wants to run things on a day-to-day basis reporting daily results, I can't argue with this, though I think it's a bad idea personally. We're not a sports page of a newspaper, we're an encyclopedia. But overcoming someone like this really is going to take a larger group of editors within the baseball community to get together and put their foot down, just like we do in Aviation.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  05:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being supportive, even though I wish you had a better answer for me! I am taking this to the Father, and trusting, ot at least trying too!. II've been trying to stand up for what is right, but I often fail in doing that the wrong way. I've let the frustrations get to me to the point that i end up beign wrong myself. Usually this is the point in which the powers-that-be slap me down, and the other person just continues doing what they are doing.

I really don't want to spend the time and energy to try to clean up the Baseball project - I just want to be able to improve my team's page in peace, or at least a sembalance of it. It's obvious I'm not going to be able to do that, but I hate to do that agin, as I've done in other areas fo WIki before. WP:AIR really does seem to be one of the best projects. MILHIST seems to be pretty good to, I just don't spend much time there, but when I do interact with them, they seem to be interested in making good articels too, not in protecting their little fiefdom. I guess it's par for the course when you deal with fallen people, especially when I'm that way myself!

Anywsy, thanks for listening, and not condeming. I do that to myself engough as it is! I'll genuinely see what I can do to make peace here, even if that mens I'll have to give up something I love, the Braves. There are more improtant things in life than Wikipedia, as much fun as it can be! - BillCJ 06:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why?
Why delete a page just because you have never heard of them?

I started a stub for Matthew Wayne Selznick, and with in seconds you deleted it, saying he was non notable. By whose standards?

The Parsec Awards are probably not very well known either, yet he's mentioned in that article, as well as the article about Pseudopod.

Thanks for your feed back,

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris A Moody (talk • contribs)


 * Two reasons:
 * It was recreation of material previously deleted by AfD at Articles for deletion/Matthew Wayne Selznick
 * The article made no assertion of notability, as we define notability. You ask "by whose standards?" Please see Notability (people) for detailed criteria on our standards.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? (continued)
Ok, so by Wikipedia's standard he isn't notable. Then why does Pseudopod podcast exists? It doesn't reference any third party sites that talk about it.
 * Thanks for pointing that out. You're correct, of course, there are no references, and I don't see how it meets notablity standards, therefore I've nominated it for AfD.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD
I was wondering if you could comment on the following articles nominated for AfD. I created the articles and at times I think I might have gotten to personally involved in the process that some of the reviewer I feel might now be biased against me and you seem to be un-biased. They are Alonso del Portillo-Marcano, Alonso del Portillo-del Junco, Alonso R. del Portillo, Miguel Luis Tamargo-Bautista, Vinagre Portillo, and Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo.. Thanks. Callelinea 01:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm certainly not biased against you, but I don't think you're really going to like my answer. I really didn't see anything in any of those articles that met our biographical notability criteria. It's all awesome genealogical research, which is something I have an appreciation for. And though it's clear that several of these people were prominent in their communities, I really don't see evidence, at this point, that demonstrates wider notability. What you need to add are articles, especially if they're on the web, from genuinely independent sources, which demonstrate the level of notability that we need. As for the dispute between you and the other editor, it does seem like there was some bad blood between the two of you, but on the other hand, there's quite a few well-respected Wikipedians who've weighed in with delete comments. So I'm going to elect to abstain from these discussions at this point. Sorry, I hope I haven't disappointed you too badly.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  05:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Internal sourcing
Alan, do you know of any guidlelines regarind using Wikipedia articel as sources for other articles? An example would be a claim that so-and-so flew such-and-such plane and did this-and-that in it. Often, the only sources in the aircraft articel is the link to the biography page, and when you ask for a source, they say "It's in the linked article!" This requires one to go hunting in the other articel to find a source, which often isn't there anyway. I can't see a serious publication doing this, especially when claims are made. I'd like to know one way or another where Wiki stands on this type of referencing, but I'm not sure where to look, as the sourcing/referencing guidleines are spread out and long. Do you have any clue on this? Thanks. - BillCJ 02:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

SS Suevic
I've only glanced at the article thus far, but it looks wonderful! I'm not sure when I'll get a chance to look at it. I'm due out the door soon at the moment, but I may get a bit done on my return tonight. If not, I may or may not leave for a visit to relatives tomorrow, after which I have a holiday in a motorhome (think you call them RVs) to prepare for and go on, but I may also grab some time in there. Finishing the job may well have to wait several weeks, though, but I shall indeed look forward to it. By the way, you've been doing a great job with tagging things for the task force but... Have you considered the possibility of getting a bot to do it for you? It could probably just browse Category:Aviation accidents and incidents. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahoy there! Thanks for asking me to look at this fascinating article, and major kudos for writing it. I made a few minor tweaks to it. Two comments on style: UK preference is not to use a comma (January, 1900) but just to write January 1900. I wouldn't correct this in an article on a U.S. subject but I hope you don't think I was being parochial in altering it here. The other one is years; although I know that not everybody agrees with me on this, I think linking year articles (like 1990) very seldom adds any utility to an article. This is obviously as distinct from coding full dates like 1 January 1900, which ensures logged-in users' date preferences will work. Feel free to relink them if you disagree, and thanks again for your good work and for alerting me to it. --John 17:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Knee-jerk AfD
Alan, is there a time restriction on how long an editor should wait before nominating a good-faith article for an AfD? See Articles for deletion/SkyWest Airlines flight 5741, and my concerns are detailed there. Honestly, user: Corvus cornix needs a leash! Assuming I haven't run you out of your supply, of course ;) I feel sorry for the creator, and I hope he's not discouraged by this. I'm one minute after creation? I know I'd be hopping mad if that happened to me even now! - BillCJ 23:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Friend (both of you), may I suggest supplying reliable sources and proof of notability before throwing an article into article space? Do either of you have any concept as to how Recent changes patrolling works? Corvus cornix 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One, I didn't create the site. Two, the editor is probably a new user. Three, do you have any idea how the "history" section works? ONE MINUTE is not enough time. Just admit you goofed up, and try to be more careful next time. - BillCJ 02:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not "goof up", and I'm doing just fine, thank you. WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL.  Corvus cornix 02:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, the creator of the article has been here for a year, he/she is no newbie. Corvus cornix 02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You've been here 5 months - that should be enough time for you to know better than to jump the gun. I have been here about 10 months, and really didn't start using sanboxes until about 3 months ago. I believe your nomination was completely in good faith, but you should have checked the history first, and given enough good faith to allow the author to finish what he started. It was not obvious vandalism, which would have been a CSD anyway. I can understand if you wre prssed ofr time, in a hurry, tired, or otherwise rushed, and I'm not trying to be TOO critical, but they're really no excuse for being sloppy. But I really DO hope you'll be more cautious in the future. - BillCJ 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

- BillCJ 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been here a lot longer than five months, just five months with this Userid. But that has nothing to do with my opinion that an article about an airplane incident in which there was no collision and no one injured, is notable.  There wouldn't have been anything that could have made me change my mind about that.  Besides, I did list it for AfD, not for speedy deletion.  Corvus cornix 02:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you did not list it for AfD, that wasn't my point. If you had waited 30 mins and then nomintaed it, you would not have said No sources, though the bottom half of the article, at least, looks as if it was copied from somwhere (some extraneous footer material left bedhind), though I have been unable to find the source., which is half your reasoning. The fact that you've been here more than 5 months means you really should know better by now. Anyway, the closer of the nominations seems to agree with my point. - BillCJ 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Gurney flap
You may be interested in an article I am working on: Gurney flap. Any input would be welcome. Dhaluza 04:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know that...excellent article! I really don't see much that can be added, but I'll take a look in my aerodynamics books and see. Nice to see you used one of Prouty's articles...I think he's got some other material on the subject which I'll have to dig out. About all I can see adding would be an image or two. We don't have them on the 412, but I'll try to get down to my friend's hangar and see if I can get a good shot of the flap on his 206.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan ...
... for welcoming me. Could you please look through "my" article on Gripen crashes for any mistakes of mine, since English is not my native language (I'm Swedish). Any comments - style, wording, typos, etc - are appreciated. LarRan 23:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a quick look-over, and made a few minor style tweaks, but in general it looks good. The only thing I'd suggest is that you consider instead of having date headers, making each item a bullet point, like other lists do. Great job!  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin help on blog-source
Alan, could you look at this diff? For awhlie, this editor has been insisting on using material from a blog as a primary source, and claiming there is a previous discussion in the archives which allowed it. Without getting into the current reason for other users removing the itme, I still feel a blog is not sufficient for sourcing in this case. I've quoted a section from WP:ATTR Talk:Mark Levin here on the talk page. All I'm asking is that you weigh in on the use of the blog, and anythign else you add is up to you. Thanks. - BillCJ 00:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
Someone has reported you at WP:AN/I, for basically no reason ( 2 whole reverts in 2 months). Just thought I'd let you know so you can comment.&mdash; trey  is the sex 04:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Trey, for letting me know. I've responded there.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  05:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not advising you myself; I figured that would be done by a bot. Anyway, User:John archived the AN/I but I have reopened it, as it extends beyond a content dispute into abusive behavior. At this point I have not requested a block against you, but I am close to doing so. --Una Smith 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

On a comment you made on a vandalism report
You said:


 * First, in looking through the article, all the statements are heavily referenced. Why would you revert the inclusion of a referenced statement? If you do, that can be construed as vandalism. If there's an alternate view, include that also, and support it with appropriate references. Bringing a general statement like this to the board really isn't helpful. Go forth and edit, add substantial and sourced material. If he then reverts that, then you have a case...come back then and report specific incidents of sourced material being reverted, and we can do something about it. <font style="color:#62BB32;">AK<font style="color:#006400;">Radecki '''<font style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh 00:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I said:


 * Okay, AKRadecki, I'm new here, but I've watched what has happened with the Peale article for some time. Is the onus really on the Wikipedia community to balance a one-sided addition to an article? And should we devote as much time doing research to support the policy of Wiki NPOV as a fanatic does to his particular soapbox? I would hope that contributors would be encouraged to write balanced, NPOV articles. You seem to be saying that as long as I can supply references, I can load up an article with as much of one viewpoint as I want, and it's everyone else's responsibility to provide the balance. Is that right? 63.119.136.68 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments?
 * Not exactly, but sort of. Yes, in a way, the onus is on the Wikipedia community to balance one-sided additions. In a general sense, there are a lot of articles that are mulit-faceted, and the nature of this being a community project is supposed to, in theory, ultimately produce an NPOV article. In any discussion, the more view represented, the more centric the final product. It would be great if you spent a lot of time doing research to balance the other side. A truly great editor would, of course, provide support for all sides (was it Churchill who said "If you're only going to read one newspaper, read the opposition's"? The point being that if you can argue the other side, you truly know the subject), but not all editors can or are willing to do that. The problem then becomes how to balance it out. It is possible to revert, if the additions are so blatantly POV that no one would question it, but if it's referenced with a good non-trivial secondary source, that's a bit hard to do. The other guy would just say that you're editing from your own POV. One way to approach it is to start a discussion on the talk page, and see if you can build a strong consensus of multiple editors, at which point consensus can be used to combat the POV. Also, if there's a WikiProject involved in the article, the issue can be discussed on the project's talk page, and a consensus built there as well. If you're going to pursue this, though, there's one thing that's really going to hamper you, and that's being an anon editor. While we always welcome edits from anons (aka IPs), you'll find that often in discussions your views won't be given the same weight as they would if you're a registered user, so I would encourage you to register and actually join the community. This probably wasn't the answer you were looking for, but then again Wikipedia is one of those strange places which isn't really a democracy, isn't really a cabalistic dictatorship (would that be a junta?), and isn't quite anarchy....  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  03:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion
Hi. First of all let me apologise for the time it has taken me to properly research your issue over the Fetus in fetu article. You seem to be having a dispute over sources. Before even considering blocking anyone, there are a number of other steps we need to take. The best would be if we can find other sources that satisfy both parties. I suggest we take the discussion forwards at Talk:Fetus in fetu. See you there. --John 16:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Boeing NLA pic
Alan, I just discovered that Image:Boeing NLA.jpg was removed from the Boeing NLA for not having a fair-use rationale, and then deleted in June for not being used! After our latest run-ins with Corvis, I'm more convinced than ever that most deletionists check their brains when they log in! I think I'll start referring to them as Internal Affairs, since they seem to think themselves above the rules that us mere mortals must abide by, but my other favorite word for them will probably cause mre trouble than I want. Anyway, I don't even know if that pic is worth keeping since I haven't seen it, but it would be nice to check it out. My IQ is high enough that I can probably write an Fair-use rationale too :) Thanks. - BillCJ 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 San Francisco Airport runway incursion
Yo, I'm relatively new and still learning...like today I learned about page moves; could you delete 2007 San Francisco Airport runway incursion as a mistake on my part? Thanks! Lipsticked Pig 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC) ...nevermind; someone made a re-direct on the page, so its probably better to keep it. Lipsticked Pig 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Rigadoun (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship
I'd like to draw your attention to User:Smatprt who, in my opinion, has been intent on rewriting the Shakespeare Authorship article for the last year to promote his view that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. I am only interested in article balance. See here for the list of his edits [] (Felsommerfeld 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Felsommerfeld, just a quick note in reply...I'm somewhat busy in real life, so it will be at least a day or two until I can look into this.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He knows, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this.  For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Hey
What do you think? --John 03:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * John and Bill...you guys did an awesome job!  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  04:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks and mass deletions
Hi again - I am continuing the discussion above about the current collapse of the Shakespeare Authorship Question article - I just posted the statement below on the Shakespeare project page as advised by another administrator with an "A". I am a long-time editor of this page and am coming under attack from 2 "new" editors and one sockpuppet (now banned). They have deleted material, section by section and my attempts to revert have not been successful. I tried posting information section by section, as advised by another administrator, asking for discussion, but none came. Instead, these ridiculous accusations came and reverts were made. My post below will tell my side of the story. I am asking that you revert the page to the version that was in place from Nov 06 to June 07 (before these recent wars started) and then lock the article for a cooldown period. Here is my posting on the project page:

"Mass deletions of material from Shakespeare Authorship Question article"

As a regular editor to all things Shakespeare, you all know (and some are sickened by) my interest in the Authorship Question (laugh). My last (and first) year here at WP has been quite a learning experience, and believe it or not, the FA process for the WS page was quite an eye-opener. But many of us learned a few more things about WP, so even though the article did not achieve FA, I think one day it will and in the process has already (and will further) become a great article.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Shakespeare Authorship article itself. For the past 8 or 9 months, the page has been relatively stable. In the last week, 2 or 3 new editors (and one unfortunate sockpuppet which has already been banned) have made mass deletions of referenced material. No big surprise - all the deletions were Oxfordian or anti-stratfordian. Now this is the same page where most of the mainstream editors from the WS FA process said that the authorship information should go. Now,... that info is being deleted, section by section. Unbelievably, in their haste, these editors have even cut the stratfordain disclaimer (that academics dismiss all the alternative candidates) that I had grown to accept.

Anyhow, because this is the WikiPjoject Shakespeare, I have been advised, and had already been considering, requesting that the editors of this page take a look at what is going on. Because I have resisted their deletions, they are now waging a campaign to have me declared some sort of SockPuppet for long-time editor BenJonson, even though I don't think he's made an edit for weeks or months. This accusation has been plastered on at least a dozen admin mailboxes - none of which, so far, has fallen for their. I know the truth, I detest sockkpuppets, and I know that some smart administrator will be able to prove their accusations groundless. In the meantime, however, the page is the one that will suffer.

In spite of the fact that most of you are staunch stratfordians, I have also found you to be reasonable and have a sense of fair play. I ask that you look at the talk page and bring some cool heads into the discussion. I ask that you look at the article and its format for the last 8 months, then look at the edits over the last few days. I realize some of you personally disagree with the content, but if we are attempting to make these articles better, then the kind of attitudes and accusations and mass deletions going on on any of these pages should be a cause of concern. Thanks for hearing me out.Smatprt 05:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Spirit of St. Louis
Alan, there is a newbie editor that has insisted that the flight of the Spirit of St. Louis was the first non-stop flight across the Atlantic and has constantly reverted the article to eliminate the word "solo". He has not responded to the discussion page or to the note left on his "talk" page. These are his only contributions to Wiki articles and he continues to make spurious claims, see: He will not stop the reverting although he has been politely informed that constant reversions without explanation on the discussion page is not considered appropriate. Asking for help here. Thanks Bzuk 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Left a note on the editor's page, will watchlist the article as well.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  13:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

V-22 Article
Akradecki, it is clear that you are very experienced on Wikipedia, and I am a newby here. However, it is also clear that the V-22 article is very biased. It reads like a Boeing sales brochure. I have been reading every issue of Aviation Week for at least 8 years, and I am quite familiar with the hisory and troubles of the V-22. Aviation week has not been so kind to the V-22 and those who support it. I can't think of any aircraft with a more troubled development that made it to production. I think you are biased, and it is affecting the article. Yes, you have the power to do that, I suppose. But it defeats the open source purpose of Wikipedia and undermines it's credibility.

I do not understand why you insist on keeping in the weasle word "reputedly" on the falsification of maintenance records. This is well documented. The source is cited right there. There is no question about if it happened. To put in a weasle word like "reputedly" is a clear sign of bias. This is one example, but the whole article is biased. It doesn't come close to reflecting the "average" point of view, and certainly not the point of view of an unbiased expert opinion.

I will quit editing but only because I know I can't win. I only wonder if you are biased because you are a helicopter junky that can't see past the coolness of the machines, or if you have financial ties to goverment or industry.


 * You obviously haven't read my comments to you or in the edit summaries. I am not biased, and don't have a problem, in principle, with you adding material on the problems the aircraft has had. As a reader and an occasional contributor to AvWeek myself, I respect what they have to say. My problem with your edits, my only problem with your edits, is that you don't provide any references for the comments you are making. As you are new here, let me make several suggestions: first, register and participate as a registered user. Folks will take you a lot more seriously that way. Second, read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FN AND WP:CITET. These references will tell you about our requirement to have any contributions properly sourced, and will tell you how to do it. If you have AvWeek references to cite, that's wonderful. Again, my problem wasn't with your comments, it's that they appeared to be your opinion, rather than material that could be sourced.

As for "reputedly", are you sure the source doesn't use that term? Has it been a proven fact? Have folks gone to jail for falsification of documents? Do you have sources? (also copying reply to IP's talk page)  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

AgustaWestland EH101
Alan, this is one of those problems that illustrates why I want mandatory registration. THere is a dynamic IP user who has been making the same changes (usually unexplained deletions of often-sourced material) to the AgustaWestland EH101 for at least the past 2 months, probably longer. I have warned them before on several different IPs, but everytime they make changes, the IP is different again. This is the last diff. I have also tried discussing it on the article talk page, but to no avail. Is thee anything that can be done? I have a feeling this is a user at an RAF base, so blocking the whole range may be problematic (isn't it always??!!) So once again, we're held hostage to Jim Wale's "vision" of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit". - BillCJ 15:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alan, he as struck again. According to a WHOIS check, the IP is in Canberra, Australia, and all his other edits have been in the same range of IPs, but never the same exact IP twice. Have warned for Deletion. - BillCJ 16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator abuse
Hello! Administrator abuse was not an attack page, in my humble opinion, which makes your deletion a wrong decision. I suggest that we calmly discuss this in order for us to reach a pacific consensus. A.Z. 18:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, take it to WP:DRV and discuss it there. I agree with the nom, though, that the clear intent of the "article" was to grind an axe, and that you have issues with admins.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  18:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I also suggest that you recreate the page with the original content, so more people can participate in the discussion. If you think it is an attack page, you can start a discussion on Articles for Deletion, so normal users who are not administrators can see the content, try to improve the content, and give their own opinion. A.Z. 18:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, disagree. Take it to DRV, and if another admin wants to recreate it, fine.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  18:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You must give an argument to disagree. A.Z. 18:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A) No I musn't, and b) I already did, above. To reiterate: The purpose of DRV is for this very sort of thing, when a user disagrees with the deletion actions of an admin. It's for getting second opinions. In retrospect, though, I did make one mistake...I didn't issue a warning on your talk page for adding inappropriate content to the encyclopedia. You are trying to make a point, and doing it in the wrong way.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  18:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not inappropriate content either. There must be some confusion. What would my point be, really? I didn't mention any administrator name, I didn't even say my name... I mean, all that I have written are verifiable facts. The subject is obviously notable. I had improved the encyclopedia, and you deleted the article... I didn't attack anyone. A.Z. 18:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Verifiable facts"? Can you provide non-trivial secondary sources as required by WP:V? "Notable"? You didn't even assert notabiliy, much less back it up with proper citations and sourceing. No, you didn't mention a name, you mentioned a whole group. If you feel so strongly, and you want to continue arguing your case, take it to DRV. If your case is as strong as you think it is, I'll be overturned.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  18:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to continue discussing, but I was blocked once because I have been incivil to an user who was an administrator. I'm going to stop for some time, now. I would like to point out, though, that I did not say that all 1250 Wikipedia administrators are abusive. In fact, this would be rather ridiculous... A.Z. 18:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion is good, no question. This just isn't the right forum. The fact that, at my first suggestion of the correct forum, you didn't just jump over there (to DRV) and take care of business speaks louder than your words. So is the block incident the source of your bitterness?  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  18:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Administrator abuse. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)