User talk:Ken keisel/Archive 3

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell FH Phantom -- citations needed
Hi Ken -- you've introduced a number of specific claims to this article, each of which needs to be cited to a professionally fact-checked source: If you need help formatting references for this information, please let me know here, and I'll work with you on incorporating it. I haven't added tags to the article itself, because I believe it's more productive to work directly with other contributors than to clutter up public-facing articles with those. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FH production shifted to the F2H
 * FHs were allocated BuNo 111749 through 111848 removed by another editor as unnecessary detail
 * The BuNo of the FH at the NASM
 * The BuNo and dismantled status of the FH at Ft. Lauderdale
 * The existence and post-retirement career of the FH at the Wings of Eagles Discovery Center
 * The existence of a FH at the National Museum of Naval Aviation


 * The easiest way to get this information is to use Richard Blaugher's "Guide to Over 900 Aircraft Museums" which comes out almost annually. If you purchase each volume you can use them to track the movement of aircraft on display. I have connections with the AAHS, so I get my information directly from them. It's available from the AAHS archives. I don't know how you would want that referenced. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In theory, It would have to be referenced to Blaugher's book. For example, "Blaugher 2010, p.123", and then in the bibliography section, something like "Blaugher, Michael. (2010) Guide to Over 900 Aircraft Museums USA & Canada. 26th ed. PUBLISHER: CITY". However, Blaugher's book is apparently self-published, and therefore can't be used as a reference on Wikipedia.


 * Blaugher has had a publisher for the last several volumes, he just doesn't use ISBN #'s. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Who is the publisher? According to Blaugher's own website, he publishes the book himself. Also, he does indeed use ISBNs; the ISBN for the current, 26th edition is ISBN 0974977241 (not that having an ISBN is in any way relevant. No citation system that I'm aware of uses this number.) --Rlandmann (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Likewise "somebody at the AAHS told me" is not an acceptable source either (I think you're saying you contacted them and they gave you this information, but I'm not sure that I'm understanding you correctly).
 * Do you have another source for the claims you've made in the article? --Rlandmann (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, one of the fellows at AAHS published an article on the FH-1 with survivor information. I have to dig through back issues to find it. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Uncited material reverted
You're continuing to add unreferenced material to this article, even while you have so much other cleaning up to do :( I've therefore removed your recent edits to the FH Phantom page. This is useful material, though, so please restore it if you can cite it to a professionally published source. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC) restored with references -- many thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Still missing however, are the page numbers for these pieces of information, and for the article as a whole. Can you please supply them? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And now you're adding citations to Wagner without any page numbers either... --Rlandmann (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Fixed thanks. The references to Hamilton in the AAHS Journal are still missing their pages though -- take a look in the "Notes" section! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Had this, but regrettably a virus has struck my computer and wiped out all the emails from Hayden. I will attempt to get them again as soon as possible. - 216.206.49.251 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that :( When you make contact with him again, remember that we need:
 * the page numbers for the full spread of pages that the article occupied in the journal (eg: pages 12-16)
 * the specific page number(s) on which the histories of these four airframes appeared.
 * Thanks for following this up! --Rlandmann (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin AM Mauler -- citations needed
In this article, it's these two specific claims (in the one sentence) that need a citation:
 * "With an empty weight in excess of 15,000 lbs., the Mauler is perhaps best remembered as the heaviest single-engine piston powered aircraft ever produced."

Who says that it was the heaviest single-engined powered aircraft ever produced? Who says that the Mauler is best remembered for this? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you brought this up. I've noticed that much of the information in stat boxes is way off from the numbers in my references. I still rely heavily on Ray Wagner's "American Combat Planes" as it used manufacturer's data for sources, instead of perpetuating the same mistakes from earlier books. I have yet to see a stat box that is referenced. Isn't there a way to do that for the information it contains. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "stat box". Do you mean the infoboxes at the top right of the article? Or the specification tables with the dimensions and performance specifications towards the end of the article. And yes, facts provided there need to be referenced like anything else.


 * I'm refering to the specification tables. I haven't found one yet that has any references, and much of the information doesn't agree with the best reference sources. How can they be made to show references? - Ken keisel (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All specification tables should indicate the source of their data. Usually this is introduced by the words "Data from" at the very start of the table. In the template code itself, it's the line |ref= that creates this. Use the same format as you would use for other in-text citations; for example, |ref=Gray & Thetford 1962, p.571, which on the page itself renders as: "Data from Gray & Thetford 1962, p.571"
 * Almost every aircraft article you've edited recently has included this information, so I'm not sure how you can say you haven't found one that does:
 * Naval Aircraft Factory TS: "Data from Gordon Swanborough, Peter M. Bowers: United States Navy aircraft since 1911. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis 1990 (ISBN 0-87021-792-5), p. 370."
 * Martin AM Mauler: "Data from United States Navy Aircraft since 1911" (linked to a footnote with extra bibliographic details)
 * Martin T4M: "Data from United States Navy Aircraft since 1911" (linked to a footnote with extra bibliographic details)
 * McDonnell FH Phantom: "Data from McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920" (linked to a footnote with extra bibliographic details)
 * In each of these cases, the formatting is poor, but the full bibliographic citation is present. Wherever possible, we try to use information from a single data source, to ensure that the data all describes the same production model and to minimise errors that emerge when combining data from different sources. In some cases, when the main source is incomplete, we might have to supply a statistic from a source other than the main one. We do this in precisely the same way as information included in text; and in the "ref" line in the table template we put something like: |ref=Gray & Thetford 1962, p.571, except as noted . You can see practical examples at
 * McDonnell F2H Banshee: "Data from McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 except as noted" (linked to a footnote with extra bibliographic details)
 * Solar MS-1: "Data from Munson 1982, p.212, except as noted."
 * Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Does Wagner claim that the Mauler was the heaviest single-engine piston powered aircraft ever produced? And does he claim that the Mauler is best remembered for this? If so, you can use him as a source for those claims.


 * Wikipedia is now ten years old; and many older articles are not as fully referenced as they should be. However, finding poorly-referenced (or unreferenced) claims in an article is no excuse to make the situation worse by adding more! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wagner does't specifically claim that it is the heaviest single engine piston plane, but if you use the entire text of both Wagner and Robert Jackson's excellent "Encyclopedia of Aircraft" you will find that nothing else has ever come close. That makes sense though, as it is the only single engine aircraft to use the R-4360 powerplant, the heaviest piston engine ever produced. The old joke was that a Douglas AD-1 could lift more than a Douglas C-47, and the Mauler could lift the Skyraider lifting more than a C-47. I suppose I could use the entire text as a reference. I will need to add this to the body of the article somewhere, as the opening introduction is generally not referenced. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you don't have a specific source for either of these claims (heaviest single-engined, piston-powered plane; best remembered for this fact) then we can't include them here. The fact that nothing that Jackson includes is heavier is insufficient -- this is what Wikipedia calls original research on your part.
 * Claims made in the introductions of articles are subject to the same sourcing requirements as any other claims. In short; there's no opportunity to introduce unsourced material anywhere in an article. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

More problems...
You haven't provided page numbers for any of the numerous claims that you've sourced to Wagner. Please fix... The formatting was also wrong, but I've corrected this for you, so it should now be easy for you to slip the page numbers in wherever there's a reference to his book.

Secondly, the specifications template doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. Specifically:
 * you cannot have more than one "|ref" line. This is quite deliberate -- we should not mix-and-match specifications drawn from disparate sources. If you think there's a compelling reason to replace the figures from Swanborough & Bowers' book with the figures from Wagner's older book, you should probably discuss that on the talk page and then replace all the specifications.
 * you cannot add arbitrary lines to the template code: the software just ignores them.

I've reverted your changes to the specs to fix the above problems. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. I have written an explanation on the talk page listing the reasons for switching to Wagner's specs. It's a bit wordy, I'm afraid, but I wanted to be very clear why Wagner is the better choice. I have no grudges against Swanborough's book, quite the opposite, I think the photos are particluarly good, but he uses his sources rather indiscriminately. Wagner was the only one to ever completely standardize his sources so that all aircraft can be compared in a meaningful and accurate manner. He started working on the book in 1957, working with the late Lee Pearson, the U.S. Navy's historian throughout most of the late 20th century, and the two of them did a remarkable job of creating a text that is both easily readable, and extremely accurate. Most aviation writers I know pick up Wagner before they look in anything else. If you don't have a copy yourself I suggest you check on ABEBooks.com and get one. Used copies are surprisingly cheap. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this; looks like we have some useful discussion going on. Thanks too for the recommendation on Wagner's book -- I've added it to my (long!) list that I want to add to my collection! :)
 * So, summing up the remaining problems:
 * You missed three page numbers (after "did not enter service until March 1948") -- an easy way to spot these is to look down the bottom of the article at the "Notes" section -- Footnotes 1, 9, and 11 1, 10, and 12 should stand out...
 * You've introduced still more facts without references! Specifically:
 * "Maulers remained in reserve squadrons until 1953." -- now cited to Wagner; thanks --Rlandmann (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Delivery of Maulers began in July 1947" <-- this claim is mixed in with claims from another source
 * "Maulers quickly gained a reputation as remarkable load lifters"
 * Are these three claims all from Wagner? Wherever they're from, please add a citation including a page number. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All of those claims are attributed to Wagner and already cited at the end of the sentence. It was explained to me by a site administrator that if the content of a sentence is attributed to the same source then it need be referenced only at the end of the sentence. The administrator stated that multiple citations to the same source throughout a sentence was unnecessary and unsightly. I do agree. He also indicated that if all the information contained within a single paragraph can be attributed to the same source then only one citation was required, at the end of the paragraph. The emphasis here was on minimizing the number of citation tags when only a single source is cited. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That position is not supported by policy, although it makes sense when a sentence contains only a single idea attributed to a single source.
 * In this particular example, the sentence "Delivery of Maulers began in July 1947, but problems with the tail hooks damaging the rear fuselage delayed service entry another year, and Mauler did not enter Navy service until March 1948, when Maulers began operating with VA-17A in the Atlantic Fleet." is now attributed, in its entirety, to two different sources — "Wagner 1982, p. 368", and "Swanborough and Bowers 1990, p. 358". This is clearly not true; so facts that you've added purely from Wagner (ie, deliveries began in July 1947) need to be differentiated from the rest of the sentence. The sources apparently agree on the balance of the sentence.
 * The claim that Maulers gained "a reputation" for their load-lifting abilities is a separate claim from the one that a Mauler once carried a useful load of 14,179 lbs aloft. Ordinarily, I'd be inclined to to simply cite the whole sentence to Wagner, but this reads very much like a statement of opinion, so we have to be extra careful with citing it properly.
 * I cannot imagine a situation in which it would be appropriate to cite an entire paragraph to the one source, unless it was a direct quotation and indicated as such.
 * I've updated the missing page number tally and unsourced claims list above. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin T4M -- clarification and formatting needed
In this article, you added the following paragraph:


 * The T4M was unusual in that its slab-sided fuselage was large enough to allow flight crews to get up and move around between positions. It was so spacious a man could nearly stand up within it. Of its flying qualities, one pilot was quoted as saying "It takes off, cruises, and lands at 65 knots".

You quote Melton on the flying qualities of the plane, but it's unclear whether you're also citing him to back up the first claim? If so, it needs a separate citation to show that.

Second, the format of that reference is fine for what goes in the bibliography at the end of the article (as you correctly provided), but the citation in the text itself should be much shorter:. Importantly, you must provide the page number here.

If you use the same citation (as in, absolutely identical, including the page number) more than once in the same article, it's a little more complex:
 * the first citation looks like: (you can use whatever is memorable to you as the "name" part)
 * the second and any subsequent citations look like:

Therefore, if all the information in that paragraph came from the same page in Melton, it should look like:


 * The T4M was unusual in that its slab-sided fuselage was large enough to allow flight crews to get up and move around between positions. It was so spacious a man could nearly stand up within it. Of its flying qualities, one pilot was quoted as saying "It takes off, cruises, and lands at 65 knots".

If the two pieces of information came from different pages in Melton, it should look like:
 * The T4M was unusual in that its slab-sided fuselage was large enough to allow flight crews to get up and move around between positions. It was so spacious a man could nearly stand up within it. Of its flying qualities, one pilot was quoted as saying "It takes off, cruises, and lands at 65 knots".

Hope this helps --Rlandmann (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Naval Aircraft Factory TS -- improve citations
This is much, much closer to what's required! Thank you! However, now you're learning to provide these citations, it's probably worth getting them right! :)


 * As with the T4M article, the in-line reference to Melton should look like: and include the page number. The bibliographic entry is fine.
 * aeroweb.org does not appear to be a professionally fact-checked source. You need to find a different source to back up the claim that TS-1 SN: A6446 is at Pensacola.

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Naval Air Station Grosse Ile -- citations (or at least, clarification) needed
This article is a huge improvement over what we had here previously! Many thanks! :) To "wax the car" now: Please clear these up, and, as always, ask for help if there's any way in which I can assist! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of the new paragraphs contain multiple claims, with a citation to Melton at the end of the paragraph. It's not clear whether all the facts in the paragraph come from Melton, and there are no page numbers included in any case. You can use the format I showed you in connection with the T4M article to cite any claims that come from Melton to the appropriate part of his book.
 * some long slabs of text have no references at all:
 * the paragraph that starts "In 1956 the Army came to NASGI. A Nike site designated D-51..."
 * the second half of the last paragraph: the section that begins with "There are still some signs of the old NAS there. The former Hangar 1 is now the Township Hall and offices..."
 * the list of aircraft operated from this NAS


 * @Rlandmann Thanks for the help. I'm using Melton's book as an interum source until my own book on the base comes out in the fall. I will add page numbers as time permits. All the early aircraft references are from P.38, and you are welcome to add the page number if you have time. Otherwise I will work on it early next week. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Great; thanks for this! :) If it's OK, I'll hold off helping out with adding page numbers until I've seen you do a few by yourself, just so I know you've got the hang of it. Note too that there's a lot of other uncited information in the articles I've linked above that needs urgent help and probably doesn't come from Melton's book. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar -- citation required in one place, better formatting required in another
Still making my way through these. This time, it's this claim that needs a citation:


 * The only American casuality of the siege at Dien Bien Phu was James B. McGovern, Jr. who was killed when his C-119 was shot down while delivering a Howitzer to the beseiged base.

Says who?

Also, thanks for the citation for the C-119 a the MAAM, but there are a couple of problems here:


 * You claim that "This former Marine R4Q is reported to be the last C-119/R4Q operated by the U.S. military" and cite this information to the museum website. However, the site says no such thing! Can you please clarify where that information really came from?


 * If you click on the page for this particular aircraft it does say that they believe this was the last R4Q/C-119 in military service. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't find any such link on the page that you cited: http://www.maam.org/aircraft.htm -- can you please supply the link to the page where you read this information? --Rlandmann (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The citation is badly formatted. To cite a website:
 * the (that is, the title of the page that you're referencing, in quotation marks)
 * a simple form of the full citation in the bibliography should look like: "Aircraft of the Mid Atlantic Air Museum", retrieved April 14, 2011

--Rlandmann (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

ZMC-2 -- page numbers missing
Again, this article contains a number of specific claims that need citations. I'm flagging each piece of information with a question here, so hopefully it might make it more obvious where things are missing:


 * The airship was constructed in a special blimp hanger built in 1925 for the construction of the ZMC-2. -- says who? cited to Morrow and Fritsche, but page number missing
 * This hanger measured 140' high, 140' wide and 160' long, -- says who? -- cited to Melton, but page number missing
 * and remained the largest structure on the Naval Air Station property -- who says it was the biggest? --cited to Melton, but page number missing
 * until 1960, when it was dismantled and the -- who says it was dismantled in 1960? -- cited to Melton, but page number missing
 * roof reused in the construction of a bowling alley in nearby Trenton, Michigan. -- who says where the roof was reused? -- cited to Melton, but page number missing
 * [the rivets] were applied by an innovative sewing machine-like device which produced airtight seams. -- who says the rivets were applied this way? Who says the machine was innovative? cited to Morrow and Fritsche, but page number missing
 * The device was developed by the Aviation Tool Co., a division of the Detroit Aircraft Corporation. -- says who? cited to Morrow and Fritsche, but page number missing

--Rlandmann (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a much better job on referencing this article and the new material that you've included. It's certainly much better now. A couple of outstanding problems:
 * The references you provided were formatted very poorly. I have corrected them.
 * You have not provided a single page number for any of the 30-odd references you've made to Morrow and Fritsche's book -- please fix this urgently.
 * You did not provide any citations for the claims you made about the hangar. I have therefore removed this material -- please reinstate it if you can provide citations for your claims. -- cited to Melton, but page number missing
 * Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Morrow & Fitsche publication date
Hi Ken -- could you please verify the publication date as 1967? I don't have a copy of this book myself, but every library catalog and bookseller site I've consulted gives the publication date as 1987, including the Smithsonian. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. My copy is definately 1967. As far as I know there has never been a reprint. Re-fixing it was a tad tedious. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that; if you'd just mentioned it, I would have been more than happy to put it right; it only takes seconds with the right tools! Now, could you please add the missing page numbers? As you can see from the Grosse Ile article, having these "naked" references lying around is inviting complications when well-meaning editors come along to clean up the mess! --Rlandmann (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I do a lot of these little edits from work when I don't have the books nearby. The only time I work on Wikipedia from home is on Sundays. I try to bring all the references up to speed then, when I have the books handy. Should be able to work on page #'s this weekend. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This unfortunately supports a hunch I've had for a while -- that you're editing without the sources in front of you, relying on memory and hoping that there was something in the book that backs you up. Please stop.


 * See also my comment below.


 * If you want to draft articles without including references, you can easily do that in your userspace and move them into the main article space on Sunday when you've had a chance to reference them and get them ready for public consumption. You can find out how to create subpages for yourself here, and as usual, I'm only too happy to help with the technicalities if needed. Basically, though:


 * click "edit" on the article that you want to work on
 * select and copy the text of the article (Ctrl-A then Ctrl-C on most computers)
 * create a user subpage for yourself
 * paste the contents of the article into the subpage (Ctrl-V on most computers)
 * edit away. When you've done, check the article in the mainspace of the encyclopedia to make sure that noone else has been editing it in the meantime; if not, go ahead and reverse the process above to paste your completed fully referenced work into the article. If someone else has been editing, you will need to take a little care to incorporate their changes as well. If this situation arises, just ask for help.
 * Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Grumman AF Guardian -- citation clarifications needed
Thanks for citing your additions to the Guardian page to Wagner, but there are a few problems here:
 * You didn't get the formatting quite right -- I fixed this for you, so you can use it as a pattern in future
 * You didn't supply a page number --fixed --Rlandmann (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You introduced a number of claims, and it's not clear what claims you're attributing to Wagner:
 * "The Guardian remained in service until August 1955" <-- did Wagner say this? cited elsewhere in the article to Goebel
 * the Guardian was "the largest single-engine aircraft ever to operate from a U.S. carrier." <-- it looks like this claim is cited to Wagner -- now unambiguously attributed to Wagner
 * "The Guardian is perhaps best remembered" <-- did Wagner claim that this is what the plane is "perhaps best remembered" for? claim removed by another editor as editorialising. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Finally, there are a lot of problems with other recent contributions of yours which remain unaddressed. It might be worthwhile fixing these before adding new material to other articles. If you don't intend fixing the existing problems, please let me know. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added the page #. Reguarding you questions, yes, Wagner does supply all the information listed. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! So now:
 * add a citation to Wagner (including page number) for the claim "The Guardian remained in service until August 1955" cited elsewhere in the article to Goebel; a shame, because Goebel really isn't up to the standard of references we rely on.
 * add a citation for the source of your claim "(though not the heaviest)" -- maybe to the page in Wagner's book where he describes the Mauler's demonstration flight? -- still not cited; I've just removed the claim. Please re-add it if you can provide a reference.
 * --Rlandmann (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work citing the information on the surviving Guardians. However,
 * The formatting was very poor; I have corrected this. You can see the difference here. (Ignore the change to the Wagner reference; I'll explain that another time, after you have grasped the basics first).
 * as usual, you have not provided a single page number for your claims -- please fix this urgently
 * you still hadn't provided a citation for your "not the heaviest" claim, so I've removed it for now. Please re-add it if you can provide a reference. (now fixed -- thanks) --Rlandmann (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell F2H Banshee -- fix citation please
As with your other recent contributions, the citation to Wagner is missing a page number; please supply this. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Fixed! Many thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Specifications for US Military Aircraft
I have started a discussion on your proposal to standardise on a single source for specification of US Military aircraft here.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 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) 03:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation formatting -- the basics
Hi Ken; unfortunately, it looks like you still haven't grasped the basics of how to cite your sources. Because of this, you'd left the Guardian page in a broken state when you last edited it. Until you master this basic skill, you can't attempt anything more complex. So for now, all of your in-text references should follow this format:

 

Surname, year of publication, and page number. That's it. We can deal with more complex examples as they arise, but if you can at least follow the above pattern consistently, we'll be way ahead of where we are right now. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I will endevour to do as you ask. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yankee Air Museum
Hi Ken; I have just removed yet another set of claims by you that are completely devoid of references. Please stop.

You've been around long enough (and had it pointed out by enough people) to know that this is not acceptable.

I want very much to keep you here, because I think you make some extremely valuable contributions to Wikipedia. However, if you cannot or will not say where you get your information from, it might not be possible to keep you editing. I am prepared to extend whatever help I can, for as long as I need to, to help you with the technical side of getting your citations right. But you need to do your part too.

I hate to bring out the stick, but finally it comes to this:


 * The very next time I see you making claims without citing a reliable source (by Wikipedia's definition) including the page number if it's a print resource, I will seek administrative action.

Enough is enough. :( --Rlandmann (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Afer the garbage that BillCat introduced to the Stealth helicopters article I quite agree. Your intrest is not in protraying factual information as much as riding the wave popular opinion, and there is no place for that here. From now on I will cease to introduce any new material and concentrate on deleting the information that is not properly cited. You have enlightened me in your manner of conduting business here. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * With regard to your request for a reference for every sentence at McDonnell F2H Banshee and Martin AM Mauler, you really need to explain why you are challenging them on the talk page. Although we assume good faith but if it is a reaction to your warning above then please stop and consider that it could be seen as being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires checkable references for all information cited in these articles. There are a lot of facts presented in these articles that are questionable, and unreferenced. It is important that Wikipedia users be aware of this, which is why Wikipedia uses the citation system I have applied. It is in keeping with Wikipedia policy to warn users of unreferenced information, and to encourage editors to add references for the material, or to delete it. I note that some of these citations have already been removed without the required references added. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If I continue having problems with someone removing the citations I will have no other alternative but to notify a Wikipedia administrator. Whoever is doing this should consider themselves warned. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ken; I see that you re-added the unsourced material to the museum page. I've removed it again, and have raised the incident for discussion here. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Martin AM Mauler. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * These edits do not constitute vandalism, and are consistant with Wikipedia policy requiring a reference for listed information. Much of the information cited is questionable, and without references should be deleted. Attempts to remove the tags without adding the required reference or deleting the tagged information will result in the editor being brought to the attention of Wikipedia administrators. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * These articles are adequetly referenced - you are vandalizing them to make a WP:POINT based on the warning you recieved in the section above this one. Please stop vandalizing to make a point or you will be blocked from editing. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ken, on a similar note, what is going on here? This isn't like you to get into editwars or crusades... FWiW, an admin is already involved; time to step back and have a coffee/tea/your choice of libation... Bzuk (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Ken, I can see both sides of the argument here. Suggest that you leave this for this evening and come back tomorrow. Per WP:EW, 3 reverts is not a right, and edit warring may be determined to have taken place at a lower threshold than this. I'm sure you wouldn't want to get blocked, so maybe it's time for a break from this. Mjroots (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I returned to Wikipedia when several of my fellow writers commented to me at how speculative the aircraft articles had become. What I found was articles, some that I had created more than 8 years ago, that had become filled with speculative, and in some cases just plane false information. In many of them as much as 90% of the information that has been added is unsourced. There seems to be a small number of editors, probably less than a dozen, who are responsible for much of the problem. What I've found here is a very hostile environment. I called into question the aircraft performance data listed because most of it is unreferenced, and what is referenced is attriduted to several different publications that do not specify the standards they have employed for their data. I pointed out that there is a highly reguarded publication available online for around $5.00 that lists the performance specs for all American combat aircraft to a constant standard, so readers could compare aircraft performance confident that the information was uniform. This suggestion was rejected because the editors didn't want to spend $5.00 for the publication! The last straw was when one of the editors published in an article that he had identified the "mystery helicopter" used in the Bin Laden raid, and published this as fact. Since the U.S. government had not as yet identified this aircraft I corrected this as a "possible" aircraft for the raid. It was quickly changed back, and the editor justified his position by stating that his solution "seems pretty obvious". He totally misses the point that obvious or not, this is an encyclopedia and until the aircraft is positively identified by a reputable source he is not justified claiming the aircraft's identity. At this point the best course of action I can take is to place info tags on the information that is unsourced. This action has two beneficial results. 1.) It alerts casual readers that the information is unsourced and may be unreliable. 2.) It encourages other editors to address this problem by adding references or by deleting the passage. In the short time since I've done this I have already noted some editors stepping in and adding references to the information I have pointed out. So it is working. Sadly, there seems little I can do for a group of editors who write as fact what "seems pretty obvious", and won't specd $5.00 to get their facts straight. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree with you that the articles that you've been tagging need better citation. What people are reacting to here is not your requests for better citations, but what appears to be deliberate disruption on your part, apparently as a reaction against my recent warning about the possible consequences if you continued your long history of adding uncited claims to Wikipedia.
 * You are also grossly misrepresenting the reason why your proposal to standardise all US military aircraft specifications to Wagner failed: not because anyone wouldn't spend $5.00 on a book, but because you failed to convince anybody that standardising on any one single reference was worthwhile.
 * Furthermore, your account of the debacle around the stealth helicopter article is oddly confused. This is forgiveable, because of the general confusion around the article at the time. Perhaps if you point to the specific edits that you found problematic, you would make your case better.
 * Finally, it seems disingenuous for you to suddenly (yet correctly!) start demanding citations in articles when for the last two years, you yourself have been steadfastly reluctant to ever source any claims that you make. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate one important point -- you are perfectly capable of recognising where a claim in an article requires a citation. You can therefore never plead ignorance when adding unreferenced facts to Wikipedia articles.
 * Ken, it's no secret that many (probably most) Wikipedia articles -- not just articles about aircraft -- are not referenced as well as they should be. This poses a fundamental problem of credibility for Wikipedia, and it's something that the community has been paying more and more attention to over the last few years. Liberally spraying seven or eight articles with tags isn't going to help that effort, though. You could instead provide citations for the missing information yourself, or engage with your fellow editors on the talk pages of the articles concerned and offer some constructive feedback.
 * You've been here long enough to know (or ought to know) that we simply don't have the manpower to address all of the demands that you've made simultaneously. However, like I said, I think that even if your motivations look misplaced to me, you are indeed pointing to real problems. I'm happy to work with you on getting them fixed. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Specific point to:
 * (cur | prev) 20:49, 6 May 2011 BilCat (talk | contribs) (2,170 bytes) (Reverted g-f edits by Ken keisel - stealth on helicopters is about noise as much as radar detection; details on the stealth Black Hawk are covered in the main UH-60 article) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 21:04, 6 May 2011 BilCat (talk | contribs) (1,952 bytes) (Undid revision 427809272 by Ken keisel (talk) - no) (undo)
 * The issue here is that BilCat identifies a specific aircraft as having been involved in the raid. My modifications were minor, altering the wording to read that it was "possibly" the aircraft used in the raid. Since no identification of the type used had been made by official sources this was entirely appropriate. BilCat seems to want to play WikiLeaks here, and this is not the place to be doing that. I am more dissapointed that this issue was not addressed by anyone apart from me, which re-enforces my belief that this group of editors is not looking for verifiable data when posting. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to be misreading the edit history. Prior to your edit at 20:34, 6 May 2011, the article read: Stealth helicopters are helicopters that incorporate stealth technology to avoid detection. While there are no officially operating helicopters that fit this description, there are a few that have been retired, rumored, or canceled: [including a] modified Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk (2011), rumored to have been key to the death of Osama bin Laden. (emphasis mine). The claim that a modified Black Hawk was rumoured to have been key to bin Laden's death was cited to two reliable sources: Wired, and the BBC. I offer the following observations:
 * 1) The article already strongly indicated that the use of a modified Black Hawk in the raid was nothing more than a rumour. This should be self-evident from the text quoted above.
 * 2) The article cited the rumour to two reliable sources. We could be confident then that the rumour existed. Note that this is an entirely different thing from claiming that the rumour is true — neither the Wikipedia article nor its sources claimed that.
 * 3) The text about the Black Hawk rumour was not contributed by BilCat. It was contributed by Araignee in this edit at 04:25, 6 May 2011, cited initially to the Wired article. At 12:19, 6 May 2011, Fayenatic_london added the BBC citation.
 * 4) Prior to your edit at 20:34, 6 May 2011, BilCat's only contribution to the article was to remove an uncited claim by Araignee that the RAH-66 Comanche had been cancelled in favour of the Bell ARH-70 Arapaho.
 * 5) Following the two edits that you complained about, I count four more edits that BilCat made to the article:, , , and

At no point in any of that did BilCat identify "a specific aircraft as having been involved in the raid" (and indeed, neither did anybody else!) This claim existed only in your own personal misreading of the article, which is presumably why nobody else felt the need to address it!

To me, the strangest part of your accusation is that you knew that the article specifically said that the modified Black Hawk was a rumour, because you specifically (and erroneously) copyedited "rumored" to "was rumored" in this edit and again in this edit. In the second edit, you even changed the spelling of the word, so you definitely knew that it was there. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit surprised at you. If you read BilCat's change it reads as follows;
 * A modified Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk (2011), rumored to have been key to the death of Osama bin Laden
 * By writing it in this manner BilCat first identifies a particular aircraft "A modified Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk (2011)", then links that aircraft to the Bin Laden raid by following it with "rumored to have been key to the death of Osama bin Laden". The BBC article he cites makes no mention of the aircraft being a Black Hawk. It doesn't support BilCat's claim in any way. The articled from "Wired" is highly speculative, exploring everything from the Comanche to Area 51. From that article one could draw a variety of conclusions beyond the one BilCat makes. I would also add that Wired.com is hardly a good source for factual information on "mystery" aircraft. The author was jumping onto the bandwagon of popular speculation in the wake of a developing news story, not describing an official news release from the U.S. military. BilCat sums up the problem himself when he stated on the WikiProject Aircraft Talk page "At this point, there's not much doubt it was a modified UH-60 that crashed." Without any official announcement from the U.S. military to the aircraft's true identity that statement is purely PoV. BilCat, and other editors writing on a developing story, must refrain from adding material before an official statement is released. Stating that there is "not much doubt" does not make the claim true. Ask yourself this, would you like me to start using Wired.com as a source, or claiming there's "not much doubt"? - Ken keisel (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's only a single dot point in the article though, taken here quite out of context. With its context intact, the article as restored by BilCat at 21:04, 6 May 2011 (note again that this text was not originally his) reads: Stealth helicopters are helicopters that incorporate stealth technology to avoid detection. While there are no officially operating helicopters that fit this description, there are a few that have been retired, rumored, or canceled: [including a] modified Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk (2011), rumored to have been key to the death of Osama bin Laden. (again, emphasis mine). In other words, identical to the passage I quoted above, as the article stood before either you or BilCat had touched it. I suspect your taking that line out of context also is why you felt the need to incorrectly amend "rumored" to "was rumored".

Some more observations:   "The BBC article he cites" -- this citation was added by Fayenatic_london, not BilCat.  "makes no mention of the aircraft being a Black Hawk" -- yes it does: -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13297846  "doesn't support BilCat's claim in any way" -- demonstrably false, and I think you mean "doesn't support Fayenatic london's claim in any way" (which is, of course, just as false)   "Wired.com is hardly a good source for factual information on "mystery" aircraft" -- I agree wholeheartedly, but that's not what the citation is used for here. The citation provides evidence that rumours exist that the aircraft was a modified Black Hawk. Neither the Wired article nor Wikipedia's claim that the rumours are necessarily true.
 * The tail of the top secret aircraft survived, providing a treasure chest of clues for aviation experts. After some detective work, these experts have concluded it was a UH-60 Blackhawk, heavily modified to make it quieter and less visible to radar.
 * Then why publish about it at all? - Ken keisel (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 "editors writing on a developing story, must refrain from adding material before an official statement is released" -- this is absolutely, positively untrue. As soon as a story appears in a source that meets Wikipedia's reliability standards, we're completely free to refer to it. There is absolutely no onus or expectation to wait for confirmation from the US military or from anybody else. In any case, it's unlikely that the US military would release a statement to say "the aircraft is rumoured to be a modified Black Hawk", which is what the Wikipedia article presently claims.
 * I think you have finally hit the nail on the head here. If you read this page it clearly states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." It says "should", it does not say "must". Clearly what they have realized that you have not is that there is much information that is worthy of inclusion that may not have any available references. That does not make it less deserving of inclusion. It also does not invite other editors to "stalk" them, deleting their work wherever it can be found. Believe it or not, your perpetual stalking of my work on Wikipedia is getting to the point where I can file a police report with my local police for pursuing me on Wikipedia. If you wish to test me by all means proceed. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 "Stating that there is 'not much doubt' does not make the claim true" -- I agree 100%, and you will note that BilCat never made any such claim in the article.
 * No he used it as justification on the aurcraft talk page, and no one (yourself included) challenged it, so obviously you do not agree 100%. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 " would you like me to start using Wired.com as a source,
 * I was afraid you would say just that. You have lost all credibility from this point on. Enjoy your National Enquirer issues. I'm sure you will be referencing them shortly. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

or claiming there's 'not much doubt'?" -- I'd be more than happy for you to cite Wired. Most of the time, I'd be happy for you to cite anything at all. And as long as you don't do it in an article, you can express whatever opinion you like about the amount of doubt associated with any claim you choose.  Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The mediation request you recently filed
I'm not sure where you were going with that request for mediation, but you didn't file it at all properly so I had to delete that. If you want to re-request mediation, read WP:RFM/G, then submit it in accordance with the instructions. AGK [</nowikI>&bull; ] 23:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning
You have been asked to stop your additions of citation needed tags as it appears your are trying to make a WP:POINT and a clearly being disruptive. Please stop adding this citation needed tags and edit waring and discuss your concerns with other editors or your editing priviliges may be withdrawn for disruptive behaviour. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What suggestion do you have for dealing with an editor whose behaviour fulfills the legal requirements for "online stalking"? - Ken keisel (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NLT: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." ... "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding."
 * See also WP:NLT which explains why this requirement exists.
 * In other words, if you wish to address issues through Wikipedia channels, you must first withdraw your legal threat. If you do not, you will be blocked while the legal threat exists and you pursue it through external channels.  --- Barek (talk) - 22:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am asking what other options are available to me on Wikipedia under these circumstances for dealing with an editor who is stalking. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:HOUND. If the user is actually "wikihounding", then it could result in blocks or other restrictions.  However, if you don't withdraw your legal threat, all we can do is block you from editing in accordance with WP:NLT. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC) You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

Commenting here to make sure you see it.
Ken, your claim that all your contributions are referenced are clearly false. Most of your edits claiming to add citations in fact only adds the "citation needed" tag. You need to find actual references. Otherwise we don't know if you are just making it up or not. For other users to undo your edits when they don't have references is *not* stalking. You need to withdraw your threat of legal action, and then start adding references when you add information in the future. If you do this I assure you that Rlandmann will either leave you alone, or in turn get blocked. Harrasment and stalking is not allowed on Wikipedia either. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe WP:WIKIHOUND applies here -- it states that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:Arbitration states "The Committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed." Since you haven't tried any of the WP:Dispute resolution steps between talkpages and ArbCom, they would not accept a case at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look above you will see that I did attempt a WP:Dispute resolution very recently on this matter. It was rejected because of a technical problem regarding the manner in which it was filed. I was blocked before any further attempt could be made to correct the filing. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean Requests for mediation/REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH ARTICLE NAME? Well, when you're unblocked, you can just re-file it correctly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If your previously added information is referenced or not is actually less important than if you now understand and accepts the verifiability policy of Wikipedia, and therefore will add references in the future. That's the important part. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

and now for something completely different
This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. --Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like very much to do that. Is there an easy way? I haven't the slightest idea how it's done. Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just set this up for you -- let me know if there's a problem with what I did.