User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 9

'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!

Brethren of the Coast
No, it just redirects to Brethren Court, the original page was named Brethren of the Coast, which was deleted. Someone mentioned in the history logs (for some reason they neglected to use the talk page) a website where much of the information on the current page is; I need to access the history logs to find the website and source much of the material for the current page, as others are ready to delete it because it lacks sources and they think it's mostly speculation and original research. If you could give me access, I'd be ecstatic and indebted to you (I tried in vain to save to former page and now, I'm not sure if I can save this one). Many thanks--Therequiembellishere 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you already have access. Click on Brethren of the Coast. It will redirect you, as you would expect, but look close under the title of the page it redirects you to: there will be, in small print, the words "redirect from Brethren of the Coast", with the last part in blue. Click on that and it will take you back to the redirect page, Brethren of the Coast, without actually redirecting you. You can then click on the history link at the top of the screen and see the complete history. It looks like it goes back quite a ways. Let me know if you have any other questions.  AK Radecki  04:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you so much, I never would have found that out! Therequiembellishere 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Kuznetsov NK-12
Alan, could you look at Kuznetsov NK-12? The last paragraph is very unclear. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just badly worded, but I understand it. It's a counter-rotating free turbine. Each prop is driven by a separate turbine section within the engine. Think of it as a doubled PT-6. Shut down, each prop and it's associated T-wheel can be spun forward or backwards without the other sections (compressor or accessory) moving, as can be done with the single PT-6 power section/prop. Hope that helps!  AK Radecki  04:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. When you get a chance, can you clean uo the wording? - BillCJ 04:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bell 429
Alan, I'm trying to prepare the new Bell 429 page at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 429. A few weeks ago you had mentioned something about Bell falling behind on the 429. Do you have any info on that we can use in the article? (I wouldn't mind hearing anything we can't use, as I assume you company has a connection to the launch customer.)

Btw, I'm expanding the Bell 427 at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 427 to include info on the various Bell stillborn twins, and am re-splitting off the 429 to make room. Do you have any sources with info on the Bell 400, 440, 206LT, and 407T? I once had an aviation mag from 1984 that had an article on the 400/440 development, but lost it somewhere along the way :( Thanks. - BillCJ 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I haven't had more time to look at your sandboxen...but as far as the 429, they are behind, but making progress. Do you have the first flight information? I'll dig out a ref if you don't.  AK Radecki  04:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like the admin stuff is keeping you hopping. On the first flight, I have a ref from Flugrevue with the date, and it's in the sandbox page. Am I correct in assuming Bell is targetting the 429 as a 222 replacement, esp given that the 430 is bigger? - BillCJ
 * Yup...if/when it goes into productions, Air Methods has, as a part of the launch customer agreement, fixed-price trade-in credit for all the 222s. As far as the 430, I thought I remembered something about the 429 eventually replacing the 430 in the product line, but I could be very wrong...the only ref I have for that one is my very faulty memory!  AK Radecki  04:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought the 430 was bit bigger than the 429. Btw, is Bell still going to try to sell the 427, or is the 429 replacing it too? - BillCJ 05:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bell is most definitely replacing the 427 with the 429, in fact, existing 427 orders have been converted to 429 orders. As for the 430, I don't really know. The cabin size of the 429 has changed during the development process. I got to climb around and in one of the Heliexpo mockups, and it was wonderfully spacious. Through the redesign, the cabin has shrunk, to the point that I've heard med crews question whether it will be a viable EMS ship at all (that was the drawback of the 427...when the final design was cemented, the cabin was 6 inches too short for a gurney, or what we call a "sled"). So it well may not be a replacement for the 430. I simply have not citable info one way or another.  AK Radecki  14:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisting
Hi. When you relist AFDs, you should remove them from the old day's AFD log, and add them to the new day's (e.g. today's). The AFD I'm referring to is Articles for deletion/P.V. Ramanayya, which wasn't properly relisted (I have fixed that though). Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --W.marsh 13:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What you did was maybe was removed it from the old log, then accidently posted it back to the top of that old log. See . What I do to relist is click "what links here", remove it from the old log, then click to WP:AFD and click "Add a new entry". In this case moving it from Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 24 to Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 1. Hope that clears it up. --W.marsh 13:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/P.V. Ramanayya
Hi - This AFD was closed because the article was a copyvio, but the source where the article was duplicated is clearly a Wiki, that says information was taken from Wikipedia, and that the information is offered under the GNU Free Documentation license, all of which seems to indicate that there's no copy violation involved here, unless I'm missing something. Propaniac 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for pointing this out. No you weren't missing anything. I saw the page copyright statement at the bottom and went from there, not looking up higher on the page for where the GFDL statement was located. My bad. Everything's restored back now.  AK Radecki  17:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bell 429 question
Alan, I'm looking at http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/commercial/bell429_prodSpecs.cfm. What is Vh (skid or wheel)? - BillCJ 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's max speed in level flight with maximum continuous power. FWIW, V speeds has all the v speeds, and is a good place to link to when using such terminology in an article.  AK Radecki  19:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, the new version is live now! Added dbuser to the sandbox. - BillCJ 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD for West Germany national football team
Sorry to bother you with this, but I think your closing result (“No consensus”) to Articles_for_deletion/West_Germany_national_football_team isn’t of any help.

This result provokes edit wars on hundreds (thousands) of football articles between those who want the links going to “West Germany” and those who prefer “Germany”.

Since it is always pointed out how an AfD is not a vote and strictly about facts, I can't help but feel that the main point (that the article fails WP:NOR) still stands.

A merge just isn’t possible, the matter at hand is if the DFB team continued after 1990 (as every football authority says) or if it didn’t. There’s no middle ground here and there’s also no ongoing debate that could be mentioned since there don’t seem to be any references for the contra-side (at least neither the article nor the AfD could name one).

Is there another forum where this problem could be solved? Malc82 10:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, let me address why the "no consensus" decision. There were 7 keeps and 10 deletes, so there simply was no clear consensus one way or another. By the guidelines, when there is no consensus, the decision defaults to "keep". Now, let me comment about the AfD. There was much discussion there, and most of it really wasn't proper for the AfD...it was more proper for the article's talk page. AfD discussions are for discussing how the article does or does not meet WP policies or guidelines, not to discuss the history of Germany or its sports teams, or other "facts". A far as other forums, there is always deletion review, but even there, the discussion will be limited to evaluating the article in terms of our reasons for deleting articles. I'm not going to comment on the actual content dispute, at least not at this point, because I'm not that familiar with the subject. It does, however, seem that an unbiased moderator might be of help, but only if both sides in the dispute would be genuinely willing to work towards resolution.  AK Radecki  18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. There might actually be a possibility to solve the problem by merging the two articles, which seems to be a less heated debate than AfDs are. Malc82 13:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very disappointed. How can the article West Germany national football team, which was created by cutting 40 years out of the 99 year history of the Germany national football team, be kept on Wikipedia despite the fact that not a single source is given for the claims it makes? It violates WP:NOR and needs to be deleted on that reason alone. For FIFA and UEFA, all results in the past century are listed under one team, Germany, see FIFA: GERMANY FIFA World Cup™ victories Winner (1954, 1974, 1990)  Runners-Up (1966, 1982, 1986, 2002)  Third (1934, 1970, 2006)  Fourth (1958) and UEFA: German Football Association  Founded:1900 UEFA Affiliation:1954 FIFA Affiliation:1904. Please reconsider the 10 delete votes, count in FIFA and UEFA as another 2, and change the result to a "delete" without the hassle of a deletion review. A delete with write protection is needed as the West German page just redirected to the German page since 2004, but it was changed into a separate WP:POV_fork article several times since August 2006. -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no can do. There simply was no consensus present. As for no sources, mark the offending sections with fact tags, and see if someone can come up with sourcing. I'm not going to get into the actual content dispute, which should be debated - with civility in mind at all times - on the article's talk page. AfDs are not a tool for attempting to enforce one side of a content dispute, and they are not the place to debate content. Discuss it at the talk page. You are also welcome, as I said before, to take it to DRV, or you can even wait a few weeks and relist it at AfD if you really think that it so utterly fails WP's content guidelines. And a note about your request to "Please reconsider the 10 delete votes"...AdD is not a vote, it's a place to discuss and establish consensus. It is not a democracy, and your position doesn't win simply by getting more "votes".  AK Radecki   18:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions
Alan, the fair-use nazis are still at work, and have deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:UTC_SA_02L.jpg. THis is a company logo, which are usually allowed as not "Free" versions exist. Could you check the delete log, and see if the image is salvageable? Thanks. - BillCJ 15:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill, Looks like it had been proded and the prod expired, even though the deletion reason was a CSD one. Looking at the page, the reason it was deleted was that the full requirements of the fair use process weren't fulfilled. One of the requirements is that a "fair user rationale" be included on the page which explains why the item should be used. I'd be happy to restore the image if you want to add the fair use rationale....  AK Radecki  17:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll write up a rationale. - BillCJ 17:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's back at Image:UTC SA 02L.jpg. It'll need to be relinked to an article, as well.  AK Radecki  17:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Will that work? - BillCJ 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome! :)
Hey, dear Alan, it's great to see you at last! And climbed on top of your baby no less, you look awesome! :) Please, don't worry about your userpage, it was a great pleasure to make it for someone as special as you. Someday, you'll have to promise me you'll reward me by taking me for a ride on your baby - do we have a deal? ;) Have a beautiful weekend, A!  P h a e d r i e l  - 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a deal to me...but as we tell everyone in this situation, "we just don't want to see you professionally!" See, as an air ambulance, most of the people we ride with are, well, in a very bad way. Generally, we only take trauma-level patients. But, on the other hand, we are always very happy to host visitors to our base, so if you ever find yourself in the barren wastes of the Mojave Desert with not much to do, it'd be a joy to have you come visit! And, BTW, thanks for the flower!  AK Radecki  18:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!
I was curious to see what you have been up to on Wikipedia lately...what a great thing to find out that you have become an administrator! Cheers, --HappyCamper 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi HC! Yep, made the plunge, and am enjoying learning all the new material!  AK Radecki  03:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

EgyptAir Flight 990
Hi, I had change the "cause" in the infobox for this article to "Flight control inputs resulting in loss of control (disputed)"; User: Fighting for Justice reverted that back to "Deliberate". I'm not sure if you agree with "disputed", but "deliberate" is not what the NTSB states, so I think at least "Flight control inputs resulting in loss of control" is required (probably could be worded better though). My problem is if I revert it back (I did leave further discussion in talk), FfJ will just instantly revert it again (he is VERY confrontational). I could use some help here, thanks! Lipsticked Pig 23:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Roger that...I'll see what I can do to help.  AK Radecki  03:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you that it is original research. Wikipedia is not the repository of the NTSB.  The Egyptians dispute the deliberate cause theory because the NTSB does think it was deliberate.  They can't stand anything that doesn't agree with them.  Like I said in the article's talk page the NTSB whitewashed the wording, so the Egyptian media doesn't go into a fury.  Calling it deliberate is not original research.  Fighting for Justice 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Bell 430 ready
Alan, I have finished up the Bell 430 sandbox. If you could double check it for me, and then move it to Bell 430 over the redirect (noting who did created the redirect!), I'd appreciate it. - BillCJ 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill...looks good! Also, looks like Fin beat me too the move. Great job.  AK Radecki  00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jeff did beat you to it. Could you delete the sanbox page for me? Also, if you think you can do it or want to try, can you try to merge the history from the sandbox to the new page? Don't worry about it if it's too much bother. I've been trying to give the new pages some edit histories by moving the sandboxes to the mainspace. Not a big deal either way. Btw, nice pic on the roof of your baby 412! - BillCJ 01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done with the delete of the sandbox. Don't yet know how to do the history merge. Chris or Guinnog (or any other admin), if you're reading this, and have time, would you mind helping?  AK Radecki  03:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, I know you're still a newbie admin :) Thanks for the dbuser anyway. - BillCJ 03:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

E-767
Alan, could you look at the Boeing E-767 page? This is actually good news for a change! Check my post on the talk page for an explanation, and I think you'll realize why I want you to look at it. - BillCJ 01:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why?
why'd you remove my pic off of the Webster County High School page? I just added a good reason to leave it alone. It ISN'T (IS NOT) copyrigthed by ANYONE and is publicly used. It shouldn't have been deleted. --Dan 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because it was tagged as "educational or non-commercial use only". We cannot have images with those restrictions on Wikipedia. All images are automatically copyrighted under U.S. law unless they are specifically released into the public domain or are otherwise licensed. Who took the picture? Where did it come from? These questions will at least be able to start you finding out whether it really is a free image.  AK Radecki  20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Another notable accident
Alan, could you check my post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force? Details there, and thanks. - BillCJ 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Browser Media
Why did you delete Browser Media? We have permission from the company to put up content from their site. Please advise. User:Yummytork
 * Who has permission and has it properly been forwarded to the Foundation? Have you thoroughly read WP:Copyrights, Example requests for permission and Copyright FAQ? Has the company officially released the text under GFDL? The text typically cannot remain tagged as copyrighted on the website if it is so released.  AK Radecki Speaketh  19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How to forward to the foundation
Hey Andrecki, thanks for the input. How do I forward information to the foundation? Is there a page on wiki about it? User:Yummytork
 * Well, you could start by actually reading the material in the 3 links that I gave you, because they give you specific instructions for doing this. Also, I'd really strongly advise you to heed that final warning on your talk page. It is very inappropriate for you to be creating spam articles for your clients. AK Radecki Speaketh  20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

SkyNorth Air
It was originally a non notable stub, and then it read exactly as an advertisement. However, I'm satisfied that the article in its current form is now Wiki-acceptable. I won't be tagging it again. Eliz81 19:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It took me about as much time to clean it up as it did for you to tag it twice. Please consider looking at articles such as this with an eye to seeing how they can be saved, rather than deleted, when the root subject itself is considered notable.  AK Radecki Speaketh  20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So noted. I just removed another tag based on this advice. Thanks for your help. Eliz81 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. Believe me, I delete a lot of crap, but it's always good to be on the look out for what can be saved. Thanks, though, for all your help in trying to eliminate the garbage!  AK Radecki Speaketh  20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks, trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. But seriously, what is *up* with people a) creating pages for their pet b) modifying entire pages to say 'pooooop' and c) adding their birthdays to day pages? if i had a nickel for every time i changed one of these in my last few days of editing... anyway, sometimes at least the vandalism is creative and good for a laugh! Eliz81 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Yummytork
Thanks -- I was actually about to do a permanent block, but deferred to your temp. block. I'm in the process of deleting his (many) spam articles. NawlinWiki 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

IRA Northern Command‎
Can you look at when it was initially tagged as G7 please? That was before all the other edits. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two other editors who have expressed an interest in keeping this article, so AfD really is the preferred method.  AK Radecki Speaketh  23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bell 429 IP edits
Alan, I don't know if you caught it today, but an IP user made a number of unexplained edits on the Bell 429 page, including removing "contra-rotating" from the rotor description here. I had wonedered about the contra-rotating part mysefl when you added it in last week, but I was able to find and link to the R&W article, which does say it has a contra-rotating tailrotor. It seems like more trouble that it would be worth, esp on a light helicopter, but I assume that's also part of the trouble Bell is having with the 429. THe IP user may just be a fanboy, or they have be failry knowledgeable, to a point. THey bumped back the certification date to mid-2008, which makes me think they just might be in the know on something, but without explanations or sources, how can we know? ANyway, if you could double-cehck my reversions, and see if I should have left something in, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghosts at portable employer of record
I feel like I'm dealing with ghosts in portable employer of record (PER). I don't mean you, of course, I mean and. Here's what happened
 * TheBackpack created portable employer of record in July 2006. Soon afterwards, he linked it to Independent contractor, then gradually wikilinked it to other articles    (there are more than this).
 * On January 3rd, he added a bunch of external links to PER . On January 18, after adding a couple more PER-related wikilinks such as he stopped editing until May 30.
 * On May 24-26, noticed all the external links to companies and removed them per WP:EL.
 * On May 25, BWatkins came back, cleaned up his user page, then left a message on the PER talk page saying that he'd cleaned PER up.. He hadn't, and he'd been inactive since December.
 * BWatkins, Man with two legs, and I got into a discussion about the External links. I agreed with Man with two legs. BWatkins wanted to argue about the policy.
 * On May 30, TheBackpack came back to wikilink Human resource management to PER again.
 * On May 31, TheBackpack left BWatkins a message about PER. and left a comment on the articles talk page.
 * On June 5, I got this message from TheBackpack. I checked "portable employer of record" out on Google and couldn't find any confirmation that the term was used outside of a few websites that are trying to attract contractors into signing up for the service. No news articles that I could find. Nothing to convince me this term is broadly used. TheBackpack was so obviously using Wikipedia for marketing this company's "new concept" -- and spreading more wikilinks and external links -- that I had no answer  except to propose MyBizOffice and portable employer of record for speedy deletion. Those wikilinks and external links take so much time to clean up.
 * BWatkins agreed that TheBackpack's article naturally must be deleted, but it's important to keep portable employer of record because BWatkins is so interested in sharing this fascinating topic. The thing that really got to me was he mentioned moving the information to "employer of record" - which would be a very warped definition of that term. I looked for "employer of record" in Wiki and found it hadn't been created, so I created it and redirected it to professional employer organization, which roughly explains what an employer of record is.

I don't know for sure what's going on here, but I feel like I'm dealing with ghosts, not with editors who are trying to be helpful. You suggested I put the article up for AfD if I still want it deleted. I don't want to keep arguing about it with TheBackpack and BWatkins and whoever else they bring to support them. I respect your decision to keep the article, but I don't know how to stop this article from being wikilinked to every article related to employment and human resources. The business articles have a serious problem with excessive internal and external links, much of it marketing-related. It's often not direct advertising through external links. I don't know how to slow down or stop this sort of thing except to spend all day writing long explanations on talk pages, and I don't enjoy writing long explanations on talk pages. And I'm sure you don't like reading them. With apologies and respect, --SueHay 02:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sue, actually I don't mind reading long explanations. I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but I'll get back to you and pursue this farther/deeper. Thanks for the detailed explanations, and one way or another we'll guide this to a more encyclopedic entry. Back soon....  AK Radecki Speaketh  04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonderful help! Thank you! --SueHay 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Howdy friend, Galexia here
Hiya,

My name is Kenneth Joseph Spaziani of the band Galexia. I had published a short wikipedia article, which some fans / friends kept updating, it got a bit big and I didn't really like the way some information was worded, so I tried to edit it out and was flagged for vandalism - I decided to just leave it all in because of this reason.

The album is coming out in a few months, and quite a few people used the Wiki for reference on me, and the band. I was just kind of wondering exactly why the article was totally deleted, instead of just edited for example. - If it is possible to be restored, I'll go through and edit it in a more professional manner, along with telling people who edited it to be more cautious.

Best wishes -

Kenneth
 * The article was deleted because it simply didn't demonstrate meeting the criteria of Notability (music).  AK Radecki Speaketh  03:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

-- Hi again, I don't mean to keep bothering you as I am sure you are quite busy - I couldn't find in the Notability criteria mentioning of members of the band being chart musicians? Arjen A Lucassen of the band Ayreon is on the album who has appeared on charts in various countries, mostly Europe I believe as a lot of progressive fans are from Europe. Also Damian Wilson is on the album, who was the singer for Progressive Metal band Threshold, who has also charted (Perhaps just in the UK? I can look all this up and link if you need me to). Let me know when you have time,

Thanks -

Kenneth

Pagan Media - deleted with no reason given?
Hi!

The article on Pagan Media was flagged for speedy deletion, I added a holdon and gave some reasoning, but now it's gone with no explanation at all? Seems a bit arbitary? The (long defunct) company was notable for having released some influential albums, and the Inkubus Sukkubus entry is incomplete without reference to the issues between themselves and PM which resulted in "Wytches" being very hard to obtain for several years.

Any chance of an explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The spirit of winter (talk • contribs)


 * Actually, if you look at the deletion record, I did provide a reason, in fact more-so that many admins when they speedy, and in fact I specifically addressed your "hang on" rationale. My statement said: "nn corp; re:hangon rationale...the material doesn't have the notability to stand on its own. Put it in the band article". Now, you'll have to pardon my short hand...translated, it means that the article was deleted as non-notable corporation, in other words, it didn't assert that it met our notability criteria for companies. As to your "hangon" rationale, you said you were writing the article to support the band's article, but since, according to the text, the only "notability" of the company was from the band, it is much more appropriate to put a short paragraph or two about the company into the band's article. If this were the case, I would not object to the company's name being made a redirect to the band's article. Hope that helps explain things.  AK Radecki Speaketh  14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Aha - Now I see it. Sorry, I missed that line in the log. Much apperciated, will add to the band's page in due course.

Cheers! The spirit of winter 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yardi deletion
I believe that you reciently deleted the page that I created on Yardi, a multi-million dollar a year software company. This article was not "spam." I actually worked a good 30 minutes researching and finding infomation on this widely used program. I really feel that my article was valid and essential. What do you think? --Aptapathy 07:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because it did not assert notability according to our notability standards for corporations. For instance, though you mention it here, there was no mention in the article of it being a mult-million dollar a year company. Also, please note that notability is established by the use of secondary sources, as the guideline I just linked you to will tell you. All the article was was a short description of the company's products and two links to its websites. That appears to be typical spam, where a company is trying to drive traffic to its websites. In addition, the article failed the copyright violation test: a couple of random sections were copied and dropped in the google search box, and lo and behold, they came up word-for-word from external websites. While I appreciate your half-hour of research, it is inappropriate to simply copy text from other websites to build your article...we consider that a copyright violation. This, by the way, is the second time that an article on this company has been deleted as spam. If you feel that a genuinely encyclopedic article can be written on the company that is backed up with appropriate secondary sources, and that meets our notability criteria, I would suggest that your start it in a sandbox space on your user page, and once it meets the guidelines, then move it over into the encyclopedia (that's typically how I write articles). If you need help in setting up a sandbox, let me know and I'll walk you through it. Lastly, and this is kind of important, when you leave notes on other editors' talk pages, please leave them at the bottom of the page - this is a universal practice across wikipedia. I nearly missed seeing yours because you put it at the top.  AK Radecki Speaketh  14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging
Its just that the category the article would be placed in, Category:GA-Class Aviation accident articles, wasn't created yet, but I've just done that, so now when the bot makes its next round it should be added to the project numbers. Nice userpage, by the way. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, and thanks for the compliment, although all credit for the looks goes to the wonderful Phaedriel who designed it.  AK Radecki Speaketh  18:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PER trademark
You might want to flag the Wikipedia legal department about the discussion at portable employer of record. I don't know how to do this, and I don't know trademark law that well. PER might qualify for VERY speedy delete. Related, TheBackpack recently asked at the help desk how to note a trademark in Wiki, so that anon comment at PER is probably TheBackpack. And someone else is now inserting themselves into this on my user page. --SueHay 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries on the trademark issue. Legally, we're allowed to discuss it, just like the press is. We just can't use it as a brand, but then again, we're in the encyclopedia business, not the labor business! We do have some guidelines in the Manual of Style on how to work with trademarks in the text, but that's about it. I'm a bit concerned, though about the new visitor to your talk page...definitly a COI situation.  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Global Panel
I've edited the Global Panel entry many times and have done a lot of work researching the organization and what they do - see mafmafmaf's action on that page - what is the policy here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verticaldemocracy (talk • contribs)
 * I've responded in datail at Talk:Global Panel Foundation.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

National Student Partnerships (NSP)
Dear AK,

Habitat for Hummanity, Teach for America, JumpStart, and many other non-profit organizations similar to NSP maintain very extensive sites/articles on Wiki. I apologize for the misunderstandings, but I strongly feel that National Student Partnerships also deserves such a space and article. I have read your comments above and would be happy to work with you to create a page that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. So that there are no further mis-understandings, could you please direct me to a page that outlines all of the requirements and guidlines, so I can re-write a page?

In addition, I am a bit confused as to your affiliation with Wikipedia.com/org. Are you a content manager, employed by Wiki? If so, should I direct any further questions to you or another member on staff?

Thank you for your guidance, Maya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nspwiki (talk • contribs)


 * Maya, first, let me make it very clear, that those organizations do not maintain sites/articles at Wikipedia. To do so is a big violation of our Conflict of Interest guidelines. Yes, there are articles about them, written independently by volunteer editors. I will be dropping a "welcome" notice on your talk page that'll have infomation about how things work. Since you, nor anyone else from your organization, should not be writing the article, I would suggest that you request one be written for you here.


 * I have no problem, in principle, with an article existing on Wikipedia about your organization. Further, to exist here, an article on your organization is required to show notability by means of independent media sources (see our verifiability policy.


 * Lastly, as to who I am: I am not employed by Wikipedia, very few people are. This is pretty much an all-volunteer enterprise, and anyone may volunteer to edit/write here (so long as they do it within our guidelines, including the conflict of interest ones). Besides being an editor/writer here, I am also a sysop or admin, meaning I have the ability to do some additional tasks like deleting inappropriate pages, and blocking users who behave inappropriately. I am happy and always available to help new users who come here happy and open to learning new things.  AK Radecki Speaketh  19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. I have gone to the recommended page and requested an article to be written on NSP by a volunteer editor. Again, my apologies for the misunderstandings, and it is indeed unfortunate that rules and guidlines were not evident from the outset. Since MissTiffee was clearly unaware that any rules existed at all, I'm sure you can understand her frustration and gut reaction to the discovery that her many hours of work in front of the computer had dissapeared.

That said, I do appreciate your clarification of Wiki's policies and structure, of which the less internet/tech savy among us are sadly ignorant. Again thank you for setting us on the correct path to establishing an article. As stated in my intial post, I am happy to work with you to create a page that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. (and yes, I am open too.)

Most Sincerely, m —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nspwiki (talk • contribs)
 * Maya, you're most welcome! I appreciate your comments and openness. I'd volunteer to do it myself, but I'm really swamped, and way behind on some existing projects. If no one else steps up, though, I'll see what I can do. One of the things you could do to help out, though, is in the area of research/preparation. Like I said before, a really good article depends on good sources. One of the things that your position does help with is that you're probably quite familiar with the media coverage that your organization has garnered, especially online news sources (ie, CNN, Washington Post, etc). If you could start building a listing of such links, in a sandbox on your user page (let me know if you need help in setting that up), that would be a good thing. Definitely stay and touch, and update me if 1)someone steps up, 2) you start compiling a sourcing list. Oh, and lastly, you might want to set up a personal account here, and discontinue the "official" NSP account, to avoid potential conflict of interest issues.  AK Radecki Speaketh  23:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice please and possible assistance
Hi Alan

I have been involved with the Church of Ireland Parish of Clontarf page which you have been over a few times. I had added a line with a link to this page to the Raheny page. The link is regarding the Guinness family who were involved closely with Clontarf Parish prior to the building of All Saints Church of Ireland parish. I believe the link is relevant but it has been deleted on at least one occasion and on the last two occassions I put it back in it has been put in as a reference (which I don't understand).

When I replaced the line and link I put in the following note with the edit (I have reinstated the link to Clontarf C of I. The Guinness family were a very important part of Clontar parish prior to the construction of All Saints. This is not an irrelevant link .)

Would you mind please taking a look at the page in question and giving me a view on whether I am incorrect or if there is overly enthusiastic editing being applied.

Many thanks on all the guidance so far by the way. --JPatten 21:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Got your message, didn't want you to think you fell through the cracks. I'm a bit rushed for time, but I'll definitely look into it, hopefully this evening.  AK Radecki Speaketh  01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dassault Falcon 2000
Alan, I've been working on adding Infoboxes and Related contents to the Dassault Falcon family. I noticed than an article has not been created on the Dassault Falcon 2000, but I discovered that it had been deleted last year as a copyvio. Could look into retrieving the page for me? I'd like to not have to do it from scratch, but will if I have to. Most of the other Falcon pages seem to rely heavily on the same source (Airliners.net), so this may have been an over-eager deletion. Do what you think is best. - BillCJ 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, see your userpage for the sandbox link. Have fun!  AK Radecki Speaketh  22:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my! Why did I bother? :) I was hoping for a bit more to wiork with, like pics and proper specs, but oh well, I can work with it. Thanks for retrieving it - not your fault it really WAS a straight copyvio! - BillCJ 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've a version on mainspace now at Dassault Falcon 2000. It still needs a LOT of work, but it's not a priority for me, as I just wanted to get something started there.

Bell 206L
Oh, I finally got the Bell 427 page finished, so that's the major work of that bunch. I'm going to try to add some of the 206LT info into the Bell 206 page too, but I'm concerned it might make the page too unwieldy, tho not overlong. What would you think of splitting of the Longranger variants? - BillCJ 01:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool! FWIW, the latest issue of Vertical has a long article on the history of the 206, since it's an anniversary year. If you don't have a copy, let me know and I'll see if I can scan to PDF it.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  01:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get print copies of anything right now, so that (or anything else you want to send that I might be interested in) would be great. - BillCJ 02:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, won't be till Monday, though...have to do it at work.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  02:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Btw, I'm not sure if you aproved of a 206L split or not. Could you clarify? Thanks. - BillCJ 02:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to think about that one...so much is the same on the two, I don't know if there's enough differences to make the L sufficiently long, but I certainly would defer to your judgement. BTW...the LongRanger was the subject of one of my all-time favorite Christmas cards, from Edwards & Associates, a Bell service center. It was a vertical card that showed line drawings of the entire Bell product line, but where the LongRanger should have been it was blank. When you opened it up, all it said was "No L"! Another one of their classic cards showed 3 Jetrangers embossed in silver on the card. When opened, said "Silver Bells".  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  02:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL, those do sound cute. As I learned from you, I'm working on the 206L at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 206L, and adding in the TwinRanger info there. When I get the article you're sending, I'll see what else we can add to it, and to User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 206-"No L". I've found that's a good way to judge if the articles can stand on their own well or not. I think there's enough info on the whole 206 series to rival the Concorde article in length, if we put it all in. The project has split other similar models up before based on content. Btw, check the "email me" feature, as I've had to change my address. - BillCJ 02:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

S-64F pic
Alan, could you check out this diff? Looks like that nice S-64 pic has been deleted from Commons, but I can't investigate why. Thanks. - BillCJ 15:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Argh! I know I had that tagged and licensed correctly, and it was deleted for "origin unknown". I'll have to load it, but it might not be until tomorrow.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  17:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember looking at the image file, and thinking everything was OK. There have been other files recently that have had source info deleted, then were put up for deletion. Makes me think most of the people doing these deletions don't use any common sense at all. THey must have a quota for deleting "improper" images, and they don't bother to do any research at all, including reading the file histories, cause they might not make the quota! Unbelievable. Anyway, I had checked to see if I had downloaded it when I was trying to read the markings on it, but if I had, I deleted it afterwards. - BillCJ 18:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed now.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  21:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Corky Meyer
I just got my copy of Corky Meyer's Flight Journal today. Wonderful! Even though there's not a helicopter anywehre in the book, I think you'd like it, if you havne't read it already. - BillCJ 18:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check it out. I've been meaning to ask...do you have Prouty's Helicopter Aerodynamics and Coyle's Cyclic & Collective? These are the two "bibles" of the helicopter world. If you need copies, email me your address and I'll get you one of each...I have several extra copies, left over from when I worked on those projects. HA would be especially helpful, as it also covers many technical aspects of a lot of unusual helicopters.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeking Mojave R&D Herc i.d.
Do you have any identification for that R & D Hercules at Mojave that you were curious about?

Mark Sublette 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark, Serial is 54-1639. That's about all I can see for markings.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  21:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Lars Olausson reports in the 25th edition of his Production List the following: C-130A 54-1639 c.n. 3026, delivered to TAC, August 1957. Assigned to 314th TCW, August 1957; modified to JC-130A?, to 4442nd CCTG, (January 1967, May 1967), to 433rd TAW, tailcode ER, August 1970, to 327th TAS, tailcode NR, (December 1971, October 1976). To 155th TAS, (October 1977, lizard paintscheme, September 1982, same, October 1987). To 188th FTS, 150th FTG, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico ANG (1988, January 1989), Sold to TBM Inc., at Dinuba-Sequoia Field, California, October 1990, used for parts. Bought by ASB Avionics, Mojave, California, May 2006, to be used as instrument, electronics and antenna mock-up.

Mark Sublette 03:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 03:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's way cool...I'll upload an image of it to commons for you. Thanks much for looking it up!  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  03:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What's interesting is that 54-1639 has not received a civil registration - obviously it is just a parts plane...

Mark Sublette 07:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 07:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and not even that, really. The wings didn't come with it, though the tail surfaces are here, laying on the ground. ASB uses it to fit check the various systems that they then install in customers' aircraft, Tepper Aviation being one of their biggest customers at the moment.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  14:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Schweizer 330/333
Alan, just wondering if you have acces to any usable pics of the Schweizer 330/333 models. I've just gone live with the Schweizer 333 page, and it really needs a couple of pics, esp for the infobox. All it has now is one of a RQ-8A derivative, but it's in the text, not the infobox. Thanks for checking. - BillCJ 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't. None have flown into Mojave, at least while I've been there.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. Even if you did have one your took yourself, some image-deletion-nazi would remove it! - BillCJ 03:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:212.200.89.39
Alan, User:212.200.89.39 has been repeatedly adding foreign-language links to the Airbus A380 page per here, here, here, here, and here. I haven't been able to find a warning for using non-engilsh external links, but I gave him a 3RR warning. As far as I can tell, the links do not cover anything not already covered by the existing links in English. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw, he is evidently on a dynamic IP. (Why can't the Foundation (ie. Jimbo) understand the problems that allowing IPs to edit can cause? Grrrrr!) - BillCJ 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear you on the frustration...I share the same. Since registering is free and easy, it makes no sense not to require registration to edit. I'll drop a not on the existing IP, though there's no guarantee he'll be on those numbers agsin.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Premier Executive Transport Services deletion
Hi there. Looks like you deleted the Premier Executive Transport Services page for lack of attribution. I believe the claim that P.E.T.S. is a CIA front is based on investigative journalism conducted by Dana Priest for the Washington Post (you'll find the article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27826-2004Dec26.html). Perhaps you'd consider replacing the page? 76.19.226.43 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted a request for references and allowed plenty of time for people to come forward with them. 6 months, to be exact. Yes, I'll consider restoring the page if someone will commit to a) adding multiple non-trivial references and b) carefully writing it to keep it clean of undue speculation and Original Research. Wikipedia is not a place to advance conspiracy theories. The Post article is a start, although it is based on speculation and, at the end of the day, is an unconfirmed report. It is, in essence, Original Research, making it a primary reference rather than a secondary reference. My hesitations aside, as I said, I'll restore it if someone will step up and do it right. I won't restore it just for it to sit there in the same condition - with no references and thus failing our Verifiability standards. Let me know.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I haven't seen the original page, so can't vouch for it either way. If you put it back up, I will reference what I can and remove bits that appear overly speculative. BTW, my understanding of the original research policy is that wikipedia is simply not a place to publish original research, not that wikipedia can't cite primary sources.

65.96.223.114 13:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can cite primary sources, but it needs to be done with care. Here's a couple of references that discuss it in detail: Use of primary sources in Wikipedia, No original research: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. He's what I'm willing to do. Register with a user name, and I'll put the text on a sandbox page on your user space. Then you can edit it with the sources, bring it up to speed, and then we can go live with it. Fair enough?  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  14:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * sounds good. Tadhirsch 14:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, the text is now up on your sandbox: User:Tadhirsch/sandbox. Let me know if you need any help or copyedits.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  16:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I added several citations, removed text that seems better suited for the existing 'rendition aircraft' page, and put the page back up. Tadhirsch 18:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent job!  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dumbest aviation edits list
If we ever start a "Dumbest Edits List" in the Aviation or Aircraft projects, this one would definitely be on the list! :) - BillCJ 22:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, but then again, I think you know how I feel about that whole article. At least it's done some good in prompting the formation of guidelines.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's true. But we've seen worse incident articles, and will again. Of course, I'm sure a few of my edits would be on the dumbest edits list too, but I'm not volunteering to find them! - BillCJ 23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alan!
Oh Gosh, Alan dear, I hope you forgive me for not replying your beautiful messages right away... with real life stuff and plenty of wiki stuff that sucked all my editing time away, these last couple of days have been maddening! With some peace at last, it's wonderful to be back at this friendly heaven that is your talk page. I try to never leave a message unreplied, even less beautiful gifts like those you kindly gave me, so it's only fair that I drop by and thank you warmly in person... even tho the rotor blades of your baby blew all my load of flowers all over your talk page! Should I pick them up, or are they fine like this...? ;) Have a beautiful day! Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 11:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, and thanks! Those flowers sure improved the smell around here ;} You are truly a joy....  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bell 400 move
Alan, the User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 400 page is ready enough to go live. Could you move it to Bell 400 over a redirect? Thanks. - BillCJ 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! Delete the sandbox?  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. I should have stated that too. I'm adding a dbuser tag, so it might be gone by the time you get there. Thanks again! - BillCJ 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha! Looks like I beat you to the tag!  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's all that practice you've had trying to beat the hagbot! Thanks. - BillCJ 22:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Could use your help
Any chance you could assist in helping me with this discussion? I can't seem to convince the editors of the page to go to standard sizing for images. — BQZip01 — talk 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Roger that. See my comments on the talk page there.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ilyushin Il-76
Alan, could you check out this diff? I don't believe this is notable, besides being unsourced. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup...per our in-process notability standards, it doesn't cut the mustard  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but it sure cut the fence! :) - BillCJ 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

C-5 Galaxy
Alan, could you check C-5 Galaxy? There are several incidents that are pretty extensive, especially the April 3, 2006 Dover crash. They might be worht listing withthe task force for incident articles. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Brown's gas deletion
What, no note of explanation for why, on AN or my talk page? Georgewilliamherbert 04:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would there be an explanation? It was nominated at AfD, debated at AfD, deleted by the closing admin at AfD. The closing admin even protected the title, which is where I was when I noticed that it hadn't been deleted. I merely deleted it in accordance with the AfD decision. Are you saying you disagree with the AfD decision? AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  04:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fear not! ;)
Hey, Alan dear! :) Don't worry about the template, just let them delete it if they believe it's appropriate. Actually, those templates were originally created for Italian wiki, including the one I used for your userpage; I was just about to code them for you here when making your userpage, when I noticed someone had already brought them a few months ago, albeit with several flaws because its syntax and functions were copied verbatim, not knowing many of these functions aren't allowed by our software here. So, I spent quite some time correcting and translating them when making your userpage, and also made several improvements to it; and trust me, seeing you happy with your page was worth the effort ;) We'll just move them to my userspace and transclude them to your page, with the advantage that the planned enhancements I have in mind can be performed without hassles. Just relax, and let me do the work ;) Love you,  P h a e d r i e l  - 05:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the best!  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

HHO gas and Brown's gas DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of HHO gas. Since you deleted the twin article Brown's gas, which was also nominated in the AfD, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 13:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

People keep bothering my talk page
Since your an adminstor please tell the following people to stop leaving me messages.

Moondyne Wafulz Soccermeko
 * Sorry, friend, but I'm in complete agreement with those that have been leaving you messages and who have blocked you. It seems to me that you either don't understand - or are unwilling to accept - that the talk page for your account is not your own. It belongs to the Foundation, who has loaned it to you for the express purpose of letting others interact with you and leave operational messages that you need to see, the very things that have been done on your talk page. I've reviewed its history, and there's been no inappropriate posts there, as far as I can see, except your posts, specifically the "rules" you've listed, and the empty threat of reporting the violators of those rules. Wikipedia is a community project, and you're welcome to join the community, but that joining comes with the need to interact and accept what the community is telling you, especially with regards to areas where you might be doing things that are contrary to our guidelines and policies. So, once you're off you block, if you're willing to work with others nicely, you'll find a lot of friends here. If you keep up your prior behavior, though, you'll end up being blocked permanently.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  01:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment to the creator of N396JS
Well done. VERY well done. I'm taking note of that and wishing my intial comment to him had been as concise as yours. Kudos. - Philippe | Talk 22:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankee!
Thanks so much for the beautiful replacements, dear Alan! :) They came in the best possible time, trust me. I'll make sure to visit you later... when you turn the engines of your helo off! ;) Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 08:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New FA nominee
Well, I've gone and done it and the Aggie Band article is up for Featured Article status. I know you usually work in the aviation articles and thought this might be a good break from them. Anyway, any feedback (especially support) would be greatly appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 08:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Oh, and good catch. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Another deleted pic
Alan, could you check Image:H-25.jpg for me? It was the only pic on the page. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've noticed that some of the deletionists have been posting notes to the article talk pages, which is very helpful if the uploader doesn't happen to be active the week of the AfD, or in this case the CSD. Obviously, the user who CSDed this image didn't do that. Would be nice if someone would suggest it to him/her, along with a request for normal AfDs rather that Speedys ;) . I wouldn't be suprised if the uploader wasn't notified either! Anyway, thanks for checking this out for me. - BillCJ 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Restored, and sourced. That one was really dumb, as it had the proper PD tag. Anyway, I found the source, and added that. Also, you might want to check out the search results that led me to the source. Also check this search, which has mostely PD stuff. Some good stuff there....  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  19:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OS X images
Hello, regarding this and related edits, I've posted about the issue at AN/I because the same images were deleted under G12 on Thursday but subsequently re-uploaded. I mentioned you so I figured I should leave you a message. Please comment if you feel so inclined, thanks. :) -/- Warren 02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Racing wolf
I noticed you deleted this article with the deletion reason of "patent nonsense". My reading of the article was that it was just badly written, but contained understandable content. I've noticed some editors tag articles as "patent nonsense" that are not nonsense at all, but which only need clean-up. In this case, you deleted the article while I was trying to edit it to change the "speedy" to a "prod", so there's no point in restoring it. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk 02:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On this one I didn't bother changing it, as it really appeared to me to be someone making up a breed...and his inclusion of his email address in the text, looking for litters, summed it up.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

John Lauritsen deletions
You have deleted everything that I have done in the past few days. Did I do something wrong? If so, I'd like to know what it was. I am very new to Wikipedia, both as a user and as a contributor. Do you reply here, or through e-mail? Mine is: john_lauritsen@post.harvard.edu  JohnLauritsen 14:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)  The tilde thing didn't seem to work. Anyway, my name is John Lauritsen.
 * Will reply on your talk page as well, but yes, what you did was a violation of our spam and conflict of interest guidelines. It was posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reference to one's own books. Wikiepedia is not a place to promote your books or your publishing company. We don't appreciate people spamming the encyclopedia. I understand you're new, but being new should cause you to read up on our policies/guidelines before doing something this extensive.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  16:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Alex Lee Thomson
Hi there, you have recently deleted an article on a writer called Alex Lee Thomson because you feel he is unworthy of the Wikipedia pages. Alex, somebody who is fast becoming a friend of a lot of bands in the UK, is moving up the industry ladder faster than anybody else in indie music that I know of. He's an underground writer and as such you wouldn't expact many external links to work, and his former magazine, Eclectic, which was when I first heard of him, was an equally as underground affair (a website does exist for it though, which can be found at http://www.eclecticmagazine.co.uk). He is now an editor at Rockfeedbcak and during his time there he has taken the site from the niche market, and after working with Diesel, has grown it into the UKs most celebrated music website with a TV show on MTV2 and Channel 4. He's done so much for modern indie music promotion and as such has become very well known within the indie music comunity and I have enjoyed the chance to work with him, so I though he deserved a page... maybe not?... I'm sure you know more about all this than the people who work with him.
 * It's not an issue of whether he is "worthy" or "unworthy", or "deserving" or "undeserving". It matters whether he is notable as we define the word. Please read Notability (people) and evaluate him based on that criteria alone. If I am wrong, and you can show me how he meets our notability criteria, I would be happy to restore the article so that you can edit it and make the article demonstrate how he meets our criteria.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Chicago Sports Fan Message Board.
Alan, thank you for your feedback. Based on your comments, I have added two references from the Chicago are print media (Chicago Tribune and Daily Herald). These demonstrate the significance the board has had on both providing an incremental voice for the traditional media while at the same time providing the media a source for material.

Again, thank you Alan!
 * You're welcome.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

PER Deletion
Hello again,

I see that PER has been deleted, but I recall in one of the many discussion that it had been suggested to incorporate PER, PEO and other related topics together, however I have seen no action taken. It had also been proposed that an article on Contingent Workforce Management be created, with some information from related articles incorporated. I have not seen this either. I find it kind of disappointing that an article of educational value is just deleted and there is no effort to re-format this information so that it is still available while not violating policies. I have requested the Contingent Workforce Management article on the Wikipedia Request page and I am willing to supply some sources in building this article. Please let me know the progress on this article.

--TheBackpack 17:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

More on John Lauritsen deletions -- need specifics
You stated:

Will reply on your talk page as well, but yes, what you did was a violation of our spam and conflict of interest guidelines. It was posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reference to one's own books. Wikiepedia is not a place to promote your books or your publishing company. We don't appreciate people spamming the encyclopedia. I understand you're new, but being new should cause you to read up on our policies/guidelines before doing something this extensive.

I can't agree or disagree with you without know something more specific. For example, on the "Homosexuality and Relition" page I added a link to several historic talks, given by myself and two colleagues in the Scholarship Committee of the New York Gay Academic Union -- talks which represent the most thorough critique of John Boswell's thesis that Christianity is not inherently anti-gay. The link was to a library of the Gay & Lesbian Humanist Association, based in England. My link was immediately following a citation of John Boswell, and therefore was relevant. Is it always considered "spamming" to cite an article by one's self or one's colleagues? As it is, eliminating my link means that one side of an on-going debate has been cut off. Or, was this a "conflict of interest"? If so, are those who have participated in debates thereby barred from providing links to those debates?

For another example, on the Kurt Hiller page I added a link to a very important 1928 speech of Hillers', which I had transtated from German into English. This translation is on my personal web site. Is this against the rules? Would it be better if I created a Wikipedia article and put the translation there?

For another example -- on a couple of pages I posted a link to the "Feminism" page on my personal web site. This contains the texts of my writings on "censorious feminism" from the 1970s -- and these texts are historically important in the on-going debate over pornography, censorship, civil liberties, etc. My review of Brownmiller's book on rape was the only negative review to appear in the gay press, and one of the very few negative reviews in the entire country. It is true that I am a partican in this debate -- on the side of Free Speech -- but then the people who wrote the pornography etc. pages are also partisans. Where is the line drawn?

I did read the boiler-plate notice, but failed to read your note at the bottom of it, and didn't realize that I was being warned in some way. My questions above are sincere, not argumentative.

JL 72.70.68.172 18:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider reading the links I provided for you regarding spam and COI. They're in blue in the text. The bottome line is that Wikipedia is not a place to promote your books or your publishing company. Do not cite your own material as references. This isn't about free speech or partisanship, it's a matter of conflict of interest.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  18:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Article overlap
Alan, could you look at the Air ambulance and MEDEVAC pages? Seems to be an awful lot of overlap in content, though the MEDEVAC page does cover some military aspects, especially in history. As an outsider, the terms have always seemd mostly synonomous to me. What do you think? - BillCJ 18:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Medevac is more general, and includes ground transport in many places. Air anbulance would then be a subset of that. As an aside, it always bothers me when medevac is put in all caps, because it isn't an acronym. I've just been to lazy to move the article to the proper name. The two articles, though, could easily be merged. Interestingly, the term "Life Flight", though it started out as a brand, has not only become synonymous with "air ambulance", is actually more recognized by the general public. When I tell someone I work on an air ambulance, they often get a quizzical look on their face...when I say a life flight helicopter, they understand.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It looks like it might be best just to remove the aircraft portion of the MEDEVAC page to Air Ambulance, as that page is still a bit skimpy.

Erlanger Hospital in Chattanooga TN has a Bell 412 operated as Erlanger Life Force, for at least 20 years. About 9 years ago, my bro-in-law had back surgery at Erlagner, and I watched his kids for the week (6 and 5 at the time). We went to the hospital to visit there dad, and as we came in on his floor to the room, I saw the 412 sitting on th pad. As we left, I took the kids to the window in a hallway to see the bird,a nd it was just warming up to take off. After a few minutes it lifted off. I'm not sure who was more thrilled to see and hear it take off, me or the kids! I'll check around Wiki and see if there's any info on LifeForce somewhere, and maybe add it to my projcet list ifthere isn't. - BillCJ 02:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.lzontheweb.com/visiting_aircraft_at_erlanger_.htm

Still more on John Lauritsen deletions -- still need specifics
You wrote:


 * Consider reading the links I provided for you regarding spam and COI. They're in blue in the text. The bottome line is that Wikipedia is not a place to promote your books or your publishing company. Do not cite your own material as references. This isn't about free speech or partisanship, it's a matter of conflict of interest.

I reply that I did read the links you provided. My questions were quite specific, and I think they deserve specific answers. I still fail to see what was wrong with, for example, the link to the Boswell talks. It was not my web site. Is it always wrong to cite one's own writings, even if they are entirely relevant? Would this link have been acceptable if it had been put in by someone other than myself? These questions are simply not answered in the links you provided.

Best, JL JohnLauritsen 22:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The COI link is very specific. The relevant part is: "Be careful about excessive citation of your own work". If you had cited that one translation in that one article only, that'd be fine. But what you did was add links to numerous articles in a manner that raised a lot of red flags that you were just another spammer. Given that I made 22 reversions (some of which were for multiple edits in the same article), all for spam links, and since that leaves only 2 or 3 actual textual edits from you, it appears that you main effort here is to add links and references using your books. It would be quite different if you were writing big sections of text, and used an occasional reference to one of your books (I've even done that once, I think), but when it's roughly 80-90% of your edits? That really looks suspect to me. AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Note on The300WhisperGuy
Alan, you mentioned a project that you can't write, I assume because of COI. You may have already asked me about it awhile back, but if so, you can try again :) Sounds intriging, whatever it is. - BillCJ 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an article about Air Methods. I'm an employee, so it's not appropriate for me to write it. AMC is the largest medevac provider in the U.S., is a publicly traded corp, and so easily meets the Corp notability. There's plenty of soures, as well. Wikipedia has one article, ARCH Air Medical Service, that covers one of AMC's brands (local services are "branded", ARCH is one, Mercy Air, which I work for, is another). I don't know if the ARCH article should be expanded or an AMC article started from scratch, but it is definitely needed. FWIW, besides being an operator, AMC's Products Division does medevac interiors for other customers, incl L.A. County. They even won the contract to do the medical interiors for the Army's Stryker vehicle. I can point you in the right direction, if that's something you'd be interested in doing.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  22:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought, and hoped, it might be that. Yeah, I'd be interested, but it would probably take awhile, as my sadbox has about 12 projects right now! Go ahead and start pointing, and I'll see what I can do. If 300WhisperGuy responds and wants to do it, that's fine with me; I'll just back him up. He's actually a fairly good writer, if he'll just be willing to adapt to Wiki policies, he'd be even beter. - BillCJ 23:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you want to start a sandbox for me to put links into?  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

EADS Astrium Space Tourism Project
You've probably heard about the EADS Astrium Space Tourism Project project already, seeing as how it's main competitor is based near you. I heard about it this morning, and looked in the EADS Astrium article, and was surprised to find someone had already put together a page on the project. It's actually pretty good, though a bit lacking on citations, but it's a great start. - BillCJ 23:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting...seriously larger budget than Burt's. I see some real problems with the artist's rendition...reentry heat on the engine nacelles and canards, for starters. Actually, I better not get started!  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)