User talk:Ken keisel/Archive 2

Sikorsky R-4
Hi, Ken. Can you please add more information for your reference for the R-4B serial number on display at the National Museum of the USAF? Publisher, editor, OCLC number, etc. There are several (14) versions, some with questionable years, at www.worldcat.org. The earliest says "1976?", so you might be able to match the information for that edition. Anyways, it would help substantiate your edit a little bit more and keep other editors from removing it as questionable. Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tweet
I reverted your changes as the Air Force still flies the Tweet at Sheppard AFB. Citation for the info is on the talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They should be flying them until mid-2009. I helped with the documents determining how many students would be flying them and in which class. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason they are still there is because they are part of the ENJJPT (Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training) program. Make no mistake, it is a U.S. wing with U.S.-owned jets...there just happen to be European students and instructors (and some of the jets are owned by other countries offically too), but it is largely a USAF program. For anything to change in the program approximately 14 nations' Ministers of Defense, or their equivalent, have to agree (with no opposition from NATO). From what I understand, it took a little convincing, or maybe just time, to get everyone on board with the program once the US decided to phase out the Tweet.
 * BTW, you can just respond here if you'd like. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ken, sorry to revert again, but it is a fleet of about 60 (at least) and they belong to the 80th flying training wing under Air Education and Training Command (one of the 9 major commands of the USAF). The T-37 is not yet retired...soon though. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Kinda hard to say really. I think the Air Force "owns" them (they maintain them through a U.S. Gov't contract), but the funds for the planes are from 14 countries (or close to 14). I could have been more specific. They have some foreign instructors an students, but the majority are Americans. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What other U.S. Squadrons are operating them? I realize there are two (sort of) at Sheppard: The 89th FTS and the 80th OSS (to which all of the students and some of the instructors belong). In any case, it may have been a PR blunder and they thought they were the last. The last squadron at Vance did the same thing a few years back. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope it's only one squadron to which they officially belong. I might have overestimated at 60; maybe only 48 now. When I was there (just over a year ago) they were exclusively flying the T-37 (no T-6s...I assume you meant T-6 and not T-46 in your post?). I helped handle the forms for recording the flights and we averaged well over 100 sorties a day with most jets doing a double turn (or in some cases triple turns). The maintenance staff might be big, but it is all contracted out, so I have no idea on the size. As for percentages, I think it's about 60-65% U.S., 20-25% German, ~10% Italian, ~10% Norwegian, with the remainder being "onesey, twosey" from the rest of NATO. The ENJJPT program is considered to be the top U.S. training program and the only international military flying training program in the world; I would imagine quite a few are intentionally trying to go there. :-) — BQZip01 —  talk 04:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
G'day from Oz. Your user page has been vandalised. YSSYguy (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

P-61
Ken, in order to keep the conversation in one place, I've replied on my talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Survivors Section
Maybe you should be reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft

And look-up the section on the Survivors section...

This is the approved format by the moderator... Davegnz (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you not take it up with User talk:MilborneOne - he and I came up with this format.


 * As far as the P-82 survivors section - it was a total mess the aircraft were listed in not particular order (ie F-82E before XP-82 etc) - the writiing was very poor, no references, lots of missing information. You also have to remember wiki's motto:


 * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly do not submit it - if you do not like my changes - too bad... Davegnz (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

M.41 Tank Destroyer
I have redirected it to the preexisting "Semovente 90/53", feel free to expand that article.--Cerejota (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

XCOR EZ-Rocket
Do you have a reference for it being there? Scaled don't own that aircraft, and AFAIK I don't think it's kept there. Are you confusing it with this aircraft?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The one and only EZ-Rocket is still at Mojave, still owned by XCOR, although it has been promised to the Mojave Transportation Museum. In fact, it was displayed to the public at the monthly open house this past weekend (ref, if you want it, is my blog, although I fully understand that's not an encylopedia-usable ref). What you are thinking of is the PDE-powered LongEZ that Scaled worked with AFRL on. Different beast altogether.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jingsah II class LCAC
I recently added an infobox the the Jingsah II class LCAC article, which I noticed that you created in October 2008. Being unable to find sources online, I used the information found in the article in good faith to fill in the information in the infobox. When you created the page, you used this source: Saunders, Stephen (RN) Jane's Fighting Ships 2003-2004 ISBN 0 7106 2546 4. If you possess a copy of this book, could you use it and add inline citations to the articles, especially the statistics? Thanks, --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing a redirect
If you for example click on Yak-3 then the top of the page says "(Redirected from Yak-3)" with "Yak-3" being a link to get to the redirect page. Once there, you can click "edit this page" and replace the redirect code with anything else. Note however that if you want to move another existing page with other contributors than you to the redirect page then you should place db-move on the redirect and not copy-paste the contents of the other page there. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Replace the code  on  with the code   (as the code is rendered here and not as it looks when you edit this section). This alerts an administrator that you want Yakolev Yak-32 to be moved to the title Yakovlev Yak-32. Replace "REASON FOR MOVE" with for example "correct spelling". The reason an administrator is needed is that only administrators can move a page to a title which already exists as a redirect or article. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am actually an administrator and have performed the moves. Otherwise another administrator would probably have done it within a few hours. You did it as I said, but on second thought I should have told you to add  on top of the existing code instead of replacing it. It doesn't matter now. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful edit summaries
Please be careful with edit summaries such as "removed erronious tag by ViperNerd - attempt to vandalize article due to racial bias against russian involvment". We do not know what is in the mind of others, and accusations of "thought crimes" are never really helpful. Perhaps he is simply an anti-communist, which has nothing to do with race! Anyway, assume good faith unless you have evidence to the contrary based on his other actions or statements that he is indeed a vandal. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

F-35 Lightning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bzuk (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Please note the appropriate place to continue this discussion on article development is the aforementioned article's talk page. All interested parties should continue the dialogue on the appropriate forum: Talk page section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC).
 * K, a suggestion has been made in discussions on the Talk page section that seems to have merit. The involvement of the Yakalov company might be better suited to the Lockheed Martin X-35 article where early development was identified. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC).


 * I agree. Unfortunately ViperNerd has been deleting all reference to the Yakovlev involvement from the F-35 article as well. He has also followed every edit I have made since editing the F-22 page several days ago and vandalized dozens of unrelated articles with hundreds of erronious tags. He is essentially "spamming" me on Wikipedia. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Ken, this is on Page 700 Jane's All The World's Aircraft 200-2001:

"Lockheed-Martin produced 91 percent scale powered model of JAST demonstrator for wind-tunnel tests and in June 1994 revealed agreement with Yakovlev of Russia to purchase date on cancelled Yak-141 programme which employed similar propulsion system."


 * Entry under Lockheed Martin (220) X-35 and (230) Joint Strike Fighter; here you have a published secondary source which is usually preferred over a website on Wikipedia. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring in Stealth aircraft
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ViperNerd (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  05:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources
Ken, can you take a look at WP:CITE so that your additions to aviation articles can be accompanied by references? I have noticed some recent shoot-from-the-hip writing of yours—writing completely devoid of cites and sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on references for the Mosquito article right now. The former intro was completely off-base, citing that the Mosquito was originally designed as a light bomber. In fact, it was designed as a fast recon aircraft, and was later adapted to a variety of other roles. In addition, the Germans used the Mosquito as a goal for their new generation of fighters, such as the He-219 (getting references on this as well). Regarding the B-52 and Bv-222, if you know of larger aircraft please let me know. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And while you're at it - take a look at WP:POINT - edits like aren't helpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just what IS the point that you're trying to make? The edit you're refering to should have already been made based on the position you're taking. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh event for Wikipedia's tenth anniversary
Hi! Since you have a connection to Pittsburgh, I wanted to invite you to the Wikipedia Tenth Anniversary celebrations we're having in Pittsburgh on Saturday, January 15. During the daytime, we're going to be having a photo contribution drive where anyone can bring in their digital photos or prints and Wikipedians will teach people how to upload them and add them to articles, and maybe introduction to Wikipedia workshops as well. Then in the evening, we'll have fun at the Carson City Saloon. There will be free Wikipedia t-shirts and other goodies, as well. See the Pittsburgh meetup page for more details. I hope to see you there!--ragesoss (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Saving Private Ryan. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 20:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that it is not necessairy to cite a reference when the performer is in the film's credits. Ray Hanna is listed as the P-51 pilot, and thanks are given for the participation of the two firms that supplied the P-51's for the film. To do it your way you would have to cite a reference every time you listed Tom Hanks as appearing in the film. Ken keisel (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

SPR Edit War
Before reverting my edits wholesale, please take a look at the entry I just added to the talk page. I don't object to the inclusion of the info on the aircraft, I've just moved them to a different section. The pilot was NOT a member of The Cast and should not be included as such. I have left his name in the section discussion the aircraft.Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, terribly sorry. At first glance it appeared that it had been removed again. I'm perfactly fine with having Mr. Hanna and son with the aircraft information. I'm most concerned that the link to his article be maintained. I'm currently going through my P-51 reference material to find information backing up my earlier contribution about the inaccuracy of their depiction as "tank busters". That caused a bit of a row in the WWII aircraft community when the film first came out. Ken keisel (talk)

Papa class subs
Given that the move to K222 was the result of a debate, I thought it would be prudent to have another one before moving back. Please take a look: Talk:Soviet submarine K-222. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not around when the title was changed in 2009, but I agree with having a discussion about it. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

one or two editors using this account?
Your user page suggests to me that you are two, rather than one, editor using this account. Is that right, or do you mean to indicate that you are just one of the two people listed? Sorry if this has been asked before - I don't see anything about this. -- Scray (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand? There is only myself listed as an editor on this account. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel like I must be missing something obvious, but your user page describes Kenneth G. Keisel and Kenneth M. Keisel with about equal weight (I'm avoiding assumptions about age or anything else there). Which one edits under this account?  Unless I'm missing some explicit statement to this effect, you might want to make it clear.  -- Scray (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Panthers
Hey Ken, thanks for the info. I started Pitt in 1991 and can tell you, definitively, that is hasn't happened since then. I had actually never heard of it before, but the painting makes an interesting blurb both on the Panther Hollow article and for the Panthers of Pittsburgh article. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. As I recall, it was the Pitt-Penn State Game in 1983 when Dan Marino played Todd Blackledge (and lost) that it last occured. The Panthers got painted pink that night. It's too bad that tradition has ended. It was easy to clean up. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, probably one of the reasons it ended is that Pitt now has two big panther statues right on campus (one at the Pete and one in front of the Union, as well as another at Heinz Field). They're not nearly as isolated of targets to try to vandalize. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the "Pete"? Remember, I went to CMU. Also, what happened to the King's Court Theater? We used to perform "Rocky Horror" there many years ago. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Name Change
Not a problem. :) The reason it didn't show up on requested moves is that the template was not transcluded. You have an archived discussion and no move template. In any case, an uninvolved administrator is the one who closed the request as no consensus in the first place. You would have to put another template on the talk and have another discussion before an administrator would reconsider. Regards, MacMedtalk stalk  23:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Project Nike. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BilCat (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BilCat, I'm a bit surprised at this comment. You've been doing this long enought to know that the existance of a surviving example acn be listed without a published reference. If one sees a F-4 on display at a museum they need not wait until someone publishes a book about it before listing it among the survivors, otherwise most of the surviving examples currently listed on wikipedia would still be waiting for references. While it is always nice when someone is able to provide a bit of referenced history on the surviving example, the fact that the aircraft, tank, ship currently exists does not depend upon a reference. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An aircraft etc may exist, but without a WP:RS then adding them is Original Research.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to view it that way than virtually every aircraft, tank, ship listed on Wikipedia is Original Research, including, I note, the missiles that were already listed (but not contested) on the page BilCat has been defending. Perhaps BilCat would care to explain why he has no problem with all the other aircraft that are listed without references? - Ken keisel (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ken, for a user who has been editing WP for as long as you have, you should not have to be told about proper sourcing. That this is a continual problem with you is not encouraging. You are completely wrong that survivor list can be added to on sight alone, and this has been discussed at WT:AIR in the past. That you don't seem to understand what I did to your edits is even less encouraging. I did not delete all of them, only the ones that related to the Nike Hercules, which has its own page. I did add an unreferenced section tag to the setion, which covers all the remaining items, including the ones before you added in your lastest text dump. The fact that survivor sections in other articles without sources is no excuse to continue to add unreferenced material, which you should also know by now. I try to keep up with them, but the fact that I haven't is no excuse to add more unreferenced material either. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BilCat, just what are you referring to in your comment "I did not delete all of them, only the ones that related to the Nike Hercules"? When did I accuse you of this? It seems to me at this point that you are trying to fabricate a conflict by accusing me of making statements that I never made. I would appreciate the courtsey of a reply. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That appeared to be the issue you had. My aplogies is I misunderstood youbut your style is a bit confusing to understand at times. - BilCat (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to be sympathetic with you as you do tend to construct conflicts where none exists. Note that your apology even ends with the criticism, "your style is a bit confusing to understand at times". I'd like to be more concerned here, but you do tend to create much about nothing. Thus far, apart from you there have been little in the way of complaints about the "survivors" sections, though I have received feedback that they are providing a valuable resource for people attempting to locate "what" still exists "where". I presently have over fifty excellent reference books on military vehicles, and apart from two books on the P-61 by the same author, none have sections on surviving aircraft. I would like to provide the kind of references you're looking for, but are you actually aware of any such books, or are you just speculating that they exist? If you actually know of such publications, please send me the information on them and I will eagerly purchase copies. Until then we must all make do with what is currently available. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether or not some people appriciate a list of every pgate guard is not the isse, but that of WP policy and guideliens, and the site's purpose as an encyclopedia. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP's purpose. It is not an indiscriminate collection of lists, per WP:NOT, which is policy. This issue of Aircraft on display has been dealt with by WPAIR on several occasions, and I'll bring it up there again now so you can get an idea of what this issue is about, and realize that you are far out on the limb on this issue. - BilCat (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ken, I don't see why you're interpreting "source" as a listing in a published book for this case. If the issue is whether some object is on public display at a museum, I would think it should be enough to include a web citation of the page on the museum's web site which lists or shows the exhibited object. Indeed, I think this would be the best possible citation for this type of statement, since a printed book may not reflect the current status of the exhibit. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur that claiming that a particular aircraft is on display in a particular museum does indeed require a reliable source to back up the claim. But Colin's right here: in most instances, a reference to the Museum's website is going to be the best reference possible. Please let me know if you need help formatting this kind of reference; it's pretty straightforward once you get the hang of it, and I'm happy to help out. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Colin Douglas Howell and Rlandmann, I agree completely with this. In the past the individuals above have opposed doing this as they believe links to museum web sites constituted "original research". You will note that BilCat has even gone so far as to threaten to block me, though it appears he may not be a site administrator after all. If we can reach a consensus that museum links do not constitute "original research" than I think we will have gone a long way to resolving this problem. I would point out that much of my work on the Nike Hercules article did not add new information, but only reformatted the information that was already there. Much of the information that was added came from a well maintained web site on Nike Bases at http://ed-thelen.org/museums.html#Aberdeen - Ken keisel (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have threatened to block you?? RL, will you please explain how warnings work? Good grief! Btw, that site doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. - BilCat (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You certainly did. Look above to your message of April 10. After that I checked with Wikipedia to see if you were an administrator. You are not, and your threat was reported. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a threat, it's a standard warning. We are required to give some sort of warning before seeking administrative action against other users. - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Bilcat that Ed Thelen's site doesn't satisfy the reliable source guidelines. While it certainly is a useful repository of information, both on Nike missiles and, incidentally, on computer history, whatever you find there about museums holding Nikes needs to be verified elsewhere, preferably by the museums themselves. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @Colin Douglas Howell - Working on this right now. I checked about a dozen of the more obscure locations before using it as a reference, and everything I checked was good. In fact, there were more missiles at some locations than Thelen's site listed. I will try to add some links to the listings asap. I can vouch for the missile at site D-53/54. Just touched it the other day. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken, two crucial point here: First, it's important to realise that when we say "museum website", we mean the official website of a museum itself, not any website about a museum or museums put together by somebody else, no matter how well done. Official museum websites are always acceptable as sources on Wikipedia, while websites about museums by somebody else are (with very limited exceptions) never acceptable. As others here have already mentioned, Ed Thelen's site belongs in the latter category. Second point: the term "reliable source" as used here in Wikipedia is unfortunate and a little misleading. Here on Wikipedia, the term "reliable" has a very limited, specific meaning: a source that has undergone professional fact checking.

On face value, this policy looks a little surprising, especially since we've all seen mistakes (even big, obvious mistakes!) in professionally edited websites and books; while there are some self-published books and websites that are probably the very best resources in existence on their various topics. So why is Wikipedia so finicky about sources? Well, the aim here is to produce a fully fact-checked encyclopedia. Unfortunately, that level of fact checking is a professional skill out of the reach of most contributors, and editors for the whole site would be prohibitively expensive for the Wikimedia Foundation to employ (not to mention against the spirit of the project). So essentially, we outsource the fact checking, by insisting that all material here comes from a source that someone else has already paid to fact check, or where we can at least presume this to be the case.

Does this always work? Of course not. Wikipedia no doubt republishes all kinds of mistakes that slipped past the editors of the sources that end up in articles. Conversely, the policy disallows us from using all kinds of useful and well-researched sources: Ed Thelen's and Joe Baugher's, for example. However, we trust that the policy works a lot more often than it does not. Hope this clears things up a little. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)