Talk:501st Combat Support Wing

Untitled

Crmadsen, please explain why you deleted the latest edits. Meanwhile, I have put the deleted items back on to the page.

Explaination Requested

Crmadsen, please explain why you deleted the latest edits to this page? Meanwhile, I have put the deleted items back on to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.103.65 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation Given

Per Wikipedia guidelines, all articles are to be neutral in tone with no editorial or personal views. See the Neutral point of view help page for full details. Additionally, all articles must cite their sources. This is explained in the Citing sources help page. All of the entries made regarding the morale and leadership problems within the 501 CSW do NOT meet Wikipedia standards and were therefore deleted.

Now, from a personal standpoint anyone who has problems with leadership needs to take it up with their chain of command. If the issue is not resolved via that channel, file a complaint with the Inspector General. Wikipedia is not the forum for discussing personal grievances. Continued editing of this or any other article with personally biased opinions that do not meet Wikipedia standards will be reported as vandalism. Reverendlinux (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to apologize for that, I got caught up in something else and didn't get a chance to add to the talk page. Reverendlinux pretty much just covered it: unless you have some source to the material you added, it is not in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of Neutral point of view. Like he said, file a grievance with the IG if necessary, but don't vandalize Wikipedia with what may be true, but is non-neutral POV regardless. Crmadsen (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a reporter with Stars and Stripes and would like to discuss this free speech issue with anyone willing to talk. Please call me ASAP. I am in the U.K. but I have a German cell. Charlie Reed 238-4868 (DSN) 01638-54-4868 (commercial) +49 172 673 9853 (cell) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.33.94 (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing discussion post and have enough backbone to discuss

Sereant Richardson and Crmasden, you guys are assuming the poster has a chain of command or IG access. The act of documenting a very real morale problem as part of the history of the 501 CSW is not a crime or otherwise violate law or DoD policy. On the other hand, the not-to-bright-spark who used a USAF computer to edit the page, or Reverendlinux using his gov computer to edit the article during duty hours is big time FWA…and a pretty damn good news story should it break. Also in the realms of FWA is using the 423 ABS comm guys to try and trace the IP address of the original poster, or using AFOSI guys to investgate the Wikpedia poster…and once again a pretty damn good news story of how USAF utilizes their resources to censor unfavorable comment. Would love to know what you two guys think. Please discuss! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.103.65 (talk)

Unsigned user, you're clearly new to editing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum for user's opinions, it is supposed to be a legitimate collection of reliably sourced content. You are very correct in saying that documenting a morale problem is not a crime, does not violate any law, and is not against any DoD policy. However, as ReverendLinux has already stated, it does violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. There is NO discussion to be had here, and I'm sure an administrator would agree fully with me. I am not arguing this from the standpoint of the Wing, I am doing so from the standpoint of any sensible individual on Wikipedia. The content will remain removed until you can fulfill what is required from Wikipedia's policy. Also, where are you seeing any talk of the 423 ABS using their resources to trace IPs? Wikiscanner does this just fine without the use of Air Force resources, I assure you. Please start signing your comments using four tildes (~) Crmadsen (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

CRmadsen why was this portion remove from the page? It seems to me that it falls under the guidelines for neutral in tone with no editorial or personal views. Please explain!

"In March 2008 a computer belonging to a U.S. Army office located at the pentagon made Wikipedia edits regarding the sexual orientation of a soldier. In December 2007, Wikipedia article edits about Fidel Castro were traced to a U.S. Military command. So was deleted prisoner data and also edited language related to operations in Afghanistan. Now, an office, located at the U.S. Air Force installation, RAF Alconbury seem to be trying their hands at Wikipedia editing, and have left their fingerprints, as shown in the history tab by IP Address 131.58.208.9 dated June 3’d 2008.

This section seems to have little to do with the article, and is not reliably sourced. Kevin (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

ALCONBURY’S MORALE PROBLEM: Morale is notoriously low among the troops assigned to the installation. The issue was reportedly raised to the 501 CSW Command Chief Master Sergeant during a recent meeting among the wing’s senior noncommissioned officers. One senior noncommissioned officer was reported to have said morale of the troops was at lowest he had seen during his tenure at the base. Minutes of the meeting are in the process of being requested through a FOIA request.

The existing 423 ABG commander was fired on 18 January 2008 by the 501 CSW commander after only 6 months in command. The reason Col Kimberly Toney gave was “I lost confidence in Col. Steele’s ability to lead the group.” No criminal charges were filed against Col Steele, perplexing members of the group, naturally leaving many to ask “Why?” The group commander of RAF Croughton was brought in to dually command the group at RAF Alconbury. [Source: Stars and Stripes article 25 Jan 08] The 501 CSW commander acknowledged the period was a “Painful challenge” and the 501 CSW commander made a statement in an interview to the Stars and Stripes newspaper that indicated the members of the 423d ABG “blame themselves” for the sacking of their group commander. [Source: Stars and Stripes article 27 March 08] On 3 June 2008, a computer belonging to the U.S. Air Force at RAF Alconbury, as indicated by its IP address (IP 131.58.208.9) and recorded on the History tab of this article, edited this article by removing paragraphs about the state of morale documented by another contributor. When portions of the article were reposted, they were removed again by a United States Air Force noncommissioned officer whose personal webpage [www.reverendlinux.com/resume.html] indicates that he is currently stationed at one of the bases supported by RAF Alconbury. Seemingly, the USAF is actively censoring out information from Wikipedia articles. [Source: Wikipedia History tab on this article]"

Of the rest, the only bit that is sourced is that which was reported in Stars and Stripes. The rest should not be included in the article. Kevin (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the removal of the subjective information was because I believe in adhering to Wikipedia goal of making this site one of an trusted encyclopedic source. The ongoing editorializing on the morale problems, real or perceived, serves only to dilute this goal. In the same vein, I happen to like Schleich toys and buy them for kids in my family all the time. I would love them to become outrageously popular in the US. Yet, I am not about to allow dilution of the Wiki entry for that company through links to commercial companies, one of which I just removed. Therefore, I take exception to the comments regarding my neutrality. As for my work ethic, you don't know anything about why I worked on this article; your FWA comments are way left of the target. Now, if any of the local folks want to talk about this issue (and any others regarding the Alconbury area), email me; you obviously know my web site. I'd be more than happy to buy you a cup of coffee at The Grind and debate this issue like adults. Reverendlinux (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"...you obviously know my web site." Would that be because you link directly to it from your Wikipedia user page [1]? "If you're really bored, you can find out more about me at my web site." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.155.2 (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation and IP editors

Hello, I am Atyndall and I took it upon myself to mediate the case put toward the Mediation Cabal by User:Crmadsen. Just to clarify some things:

To the IP Address editors: Content added to Wikipedia articles must conform to a neutral point of view, meaning that no personal opinions about the subjects of articles (or about how Wikipedia is "censoring" your edits) are allowed to be added to articles. Also, claims that are controversial or subject to disagreement must be backed up by reliable sources. If would be so kind as to tell me what you want added to the article, I will be most happy to help you write it into a format that will not cause it to be reverted. Continued adding of the "its censored" paragraph or other violations the neutral point of view may result in the article being protected against anonymous editing (or, in serious cases, all editing) until the issue can be resolved.

Thankyou.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Atnydall. Before I post this please look it over... I think this is netral point of veiw w/reliable sources if not help me edit so it doesn't get reverted. Thanks again for your help.

" The existing 423 ABG commander was fired on 18 January 2008 by the 501 CSW commander after only 6 months in command. The reason Col Kimberly Toney gave was “I lost confidence in Col. Steele’s ability to lead the group.” No criminal charges were filed against Col Steele, perplexing members of the group, naturally leaving many to ask “Why?” The group commander of RAF Croughton was brought in to dually command the group at RAF Alconbury. [Source: Stars and Stripes article 25 Jan 08] The 501 CSW commander acknowledged the period was a “Painful challenge” and the 501 CSW commander made a statement in an interview to the Stars and Stripes newspaper that indicated the members of the 423d ABG “blame themselves” for the sacking of their group commander. [Source: Stars and Stripes article 27 March 08]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.106.246 (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be mostly fine, these are some small corrections to make the paragraph seem more neutral, also, to help support your references, they need to be in a citation format, so please edit the below article and edit the text that appears (once in edit mode) below (The cite news things) and I have added comnments inside [ ] brackets, comments like "who?" mean you should mention the person's name and "needs sources" means that you need to say where you got that information from (if you cant find a source, the information needs to be removed). Article follows:

Leadership issues

The 423 ABG commander, Col. Robert G. Steele, was dismissed from his position on 18 January 2008 by the 501 CSW commander after only 6 months in command. The reason Col Kimberly Toney gave was "I lost confidence in Col. Steele's ability to lead the group." No criminal charges were filed against Col. Steele. The group commander of RAF Croughton, Col. John Jordan, was brought in to dually command the group at RAF Alconbury. The 501 CSW commander acknowledged the period was a "Painful challenge" and the 501 CSW commander (Col. Kimberly Toney) made a statement in an interview to the Stars and Stripes newspaper that indicated the members of the 423d ABG "blame themselves" for the sacking of Steele.

Notes

Are other editors fine with this? Or do you have suggestions?  Atyndall93 | talk  01:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the citations, but have left out the ref tags for now. The cites given seem to support the text I have left. Kevin (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Atyndall, thanks for the work on this. I'm fine with the cited edits. However, I'm not 100% on need the to include the information. These events are minute in comparison to the overall historical scope of the article. If they are to be included, maybe doing so in a subsection titled Leadership Issues would be appropriate. Reverendlinux (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a subsection on this would be preferred.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To IP editors: Are you happy with the above paragraph? if you are, there are no objects so far about it, so it could be added if you wish.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Atyndall, I'm one of the IP editors and I'm the IP editors that ask for help. I have registered with wikipedia and now really ready to do some editing. Thanks for the help but I wish we could document more on this issue and the 501st ways of doing business, but understand that wikipedia has policies for a reason. I'll post this as soon as the restrictions are lifted. Thanks again.

If there is anything else that you wish to add to that paragraph (or the article for that matter) please, feel free to tell me or the other users on this page and we will help you to write it into a format that will allow it to stay in the article.  Atyndall93 | talk  00:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: If no one objects in the next three days, I will close the mediation case. Thankyou for your time.  Atyndall93 | talk  13:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the paragraphs above as there have been no objections so far.  Atyndall93 | talk  02:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Atyndall Thanks... For your support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heymanwhatsup (talk • contribs) 12:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks a lot more like a Wikipedia article, thanks a lot Atyndall. Crmadsen (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The case is now closed, thankyou for your time.  Atyndall93 | talk  02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

re-Inserted "Leadership Issues" Section

On July 23'd, Bwmoll3 moved the "Leadership Issues" section to RAF Alconbury. I moved it back to 501 CSW. It is well sourced. If there is disagreement with this, lets please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.178.65 (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved the section to the RAF Alconbury page because the issues were with the 432d ABG commander, not the 501st CSW. The two units are located at the same place (Alconbury), but Alconbury is commanded by the 423d ABG.. so for that reason I moved that section to the Alconbury page.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

501 CSW PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER

For clarification, the contributions to this article made on June 25th 2008 (20:28) were likely made by the 501 CSW Public Affairs Officer as indicated by the uesr name "501pao." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.178.65 (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 501st Combat Support Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103102538/http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil:80/ to http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)