User talk:A Train/Archive II

Law stubs

Thanks. I've just been trying to clear up a ton of law red links. Mmmbeer 03:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gump and Gene Kranz article tone

thank you very much. i appreciate the help with Gene Kranz. i'm new to the proper format on wikipedia, so i did my best. the thing about kranz is that, since he is such a verbally astute man, who is about 'no-nonsense clarity', nobody has written much on him - he's done all the very clear and factual speaking already on his own. it makes it difficult to write about him without quoting him much, because 1. nobody else has written about him much and 2. everything about the program was basically stated by him and only a few other astronauts....so all i could do is quote, as little as possible. anything you can think of is welcomed. thanks!! <unsigned comment by User:Gump at 21:55, 31 July 2005>

I responded at User talk:Gump#About NPOV and encyclopedic tone on Gene Kranz.

Worst case I do it myself

There's like 4 folks willing to help (me counted) so no problem. :-) Kim Bruning 12:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TIE/rc

It has an entry at the Star Wars databanks, which is the official Star Wars site. Thats enough for me to consider it canon.--Kross 18:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

(I replied at User_talk:Kross#TIE.2Frc_Vanguard-_borderline_fancruft.)

specifications for PBY

I'm not sure if you were aware, but we recently had a survey at the aircraft wikiproject that discussed, among other things, the style we should use for specifications. By a small margin, the (current standard) inline list format came out ahead, rather than the blue infobox.

As you're working on FAC for the Catalina, and since you didn't vote there, I was curious - would you have a problem switching the article over to the inline format? I personally think articles look better with the newer layout, especially ones with a lot of photos. If I hadn't spotted your involvement, I would have simply swapped it over, but now I'd like let you know and perhaps participate in the project's discussion if you dislike the format. Anyway, glad to find someone else loves the cat as much as I do! Have a good one. -eric ✈ 19:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! WikiProject Aircraft? Sign me up ;). Eric, I will definitely switch the Catalina specs to the new preferred format. Anything you can do to help me get the Cat article to FAC would be fantastic, and I'll definitely be participating in future WikiProj A/C endevours. Nice to make your acquaintance. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 20:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Hey, anything I can do to help! Glad you joined up with the project, it's really expanded since I joined a year or so ago. :) I just created a basic PB2Y Coronado and stubbed off the PB4Y Privateer, so the PBY's got a little company now. I'm not sure what the PB3Y was other than a concept 4-engine boat, but I'm going to keep poking around. Anyway, the Catalina's looking quite good! I just added a BuAir 3-view to the specs section, which is something I've been doing to other aircraft as I find PD 3-views lying around. If you come up with your question, just drop me a line. -eric ✈ 04:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With the specs, go ahead and leave in the fields you don't have - and we're currently leaning towards including cruise speed (I do anyway, as it stands). By leaving the fields blank, it highlights the information that's not there (although it does give a bit of an unfinished impression to readers, but that can't quite be helped) much like red wikilinks do in articles.

So... put 'em both in, so if someone winds up finding climb rate, we can get that in as well. For example, I have a feeling it's in Navy manuals of the time. There's actually a dedicated aviation library (:D) at the new Seattle Public Library that I might give a shot this week. Anyway, one thing I wanted to mention about the PBY - there's a big chunk of units which used it, but it's almost entirely incomplete and features only RAF units. We should probably consider moving it to a subpage, despite their taboo nature, or cut it altogether. Very few of our top-notch articles include it, including Convair B-36, a previous Featured Article. -eric ✈ 04:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I likewise don't think the squadron list is worth having, but I didn't want to act unilaterally against the wishes of GraemeLeggett without achieving a concensus first. I'm still going to wait until he comes back online before I remove them, because it would be quite rude to hop online and find myself reverted again were I in his shoes. I'm sure you'll find the rate of climb in the technical manuals, like you said (if I don't find them first :) ).

I've put up a pre-FAC nomination checklist on PBY Catalina's talk page, please add to it as you see fit. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology

I am a Scientologist and I appreciate your offering to ensure the articles are NPOV. However, I would like to point out that at that almost 1/2 or more of the members of this project have an anti-Scientology POV. Also, interesting to note is that usually when a Scientologist attempts to edit a Scientology-related article, a "cabal" of anti-Scientology POV contributors show up and destroy any sense of consensus. I think this project should not have any pro or anti Scientology POV's at all. Only contributors who are 100% neutral should be on this project. David Gerard (who I am assuming is the project leader) is definitely anti-Scn and I can prove it if he tries to deny it. --AI 00:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you are interested in working with the project; we can only benefit from having some Scientologists on board to help us out. Your allegation about David Gerard (whom I respect) raises an interesting point. I'm willing to accept as a given for the sake of argument that David Gerard is anti-CoS, as you say. But if you are a member of the CoS, doesn't that make you by default pro-Scientology? If the goal of the project is to make neutral POV articles, then by your logic neither of you can participate.

What we should do is work together as best we can, recognizing others' (and our own) tendencies and biases, and work to make the Wikipedia's collection of CoS articles as informative and neutral as we can. Just because David is anti-CoS (and this has not been proven to me yet) and you are pro-CoS doesn't mean that you can't both set aside your biases to help write neutral articles.

Thanks for being interested enough to write to me about it; I do understand your concern and I promise to do my best to maintain NPOV, just as I do with any other articles on Wikipedia. --Fernando Rizo T/C 00:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking to participate. --AI 00:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AI. I sympathize with your concerns, but I feel they may be unfounded. I've left a full reply on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You feel they may be unfounded.. Sounds a bit subjective. If one takes an objective look at the histories of the Scientology articles you can see plenty of evidence which support my claims. --AI 00:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David represented himself as the operator of www.xenu.netizen.com.au according to The Salt Lake Tribune. Reference: With LDS Book on Net, Lawsuit Might Be Moot The Salt Lake Tribune, by Sheila R. McCann, Saturday, October 30, 1999. It is easy to prove that David Gerard criticizes Scientology. Do a google search of the usenet for his name and you will see more. --AI 00:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, and I understand your fears. Wikipedia is bigger than one person, and definitely bigger than one person's POV. We'll all work together to ensure NPOV articles. --Fernando Rizo T/C 01:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fernando. I have no such fears, only strong concerns. --AI 21:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a critic of Scientology, what passes for an expert in such a regard. See http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/ - this is in no way a secret. I also state it on WP:SCN. However, NPOV does not require Sympathetic Point Of View. And given AI's insistence on cut'n'pasting CoS POV (he's a long-term CoS staffer), I find it eyebrow-raising that he claims that me merely being a critic means I shouldn't be editing in the area - David Gerard 08:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David IS a critic of Scientology. If David is the leader of the Wikipedia project to NPOV Scientology, I strongly suggest he step down as leader. --AI 21:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republic

Hi Fernando! Any work I did on that Republic article has been reverted by a previous editor. I'm not too willing to get into a pissing match over bad grammer. I'd rather get involved with the Aircraft project you were discussing in an earlier post. Although I'm not a pilot, I have logged thousands of simulation hours using mostly esoteric vehicles. I'm partial to the DeHavilland "Comet", a plane that had a bad habit of crashing. Anyways, some direction re:Republic would be appreciated. See you 'round! Hamster Sandwich 14:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hamster: I haven't read up on your dispute with the other editor over Republic, so I can't comment on that. Generally speaking, it's good to avoid getting into a pointless argument if it's just going to degenerate into a fight. Glad you want to pitch in for Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, though. If PBY Catalina doesn't float your boat, there's plenty of planes that don't have articles yet. A quick perusal through an aircraft encyclopedia should give you plenty to work from. I promise to read Republic over the next day or so and give you my two bits. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MARINE TEAM 6

i have found the source i was looking for ,for the article on marine team 6

the vital guide to special forces by george forty

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1840372060/qid%3D1123004748/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-7531850-0943238

heres the link to borders books if you're interested in buying the book now please recind the deletion for marine team 6

thank you

JH<User:69.248.202.119 at 10:47, 2 August 2005>

marine team 6

they mention marine team 6 in that book it doesnt have its own area in the book but it is inbedded in the section about the u.s. marine corps you can also find out more about them from that other source i stated which has more info about them in it then the vital guide does

username

how do i create a username i cant find a link for it also if i somehow forget my password how will i retrieve it?if i create a username will i be hasseled by other users?if so can i block them?anyway if you think it would be beneficial for me to have a username then please send me a link to create one thanks

Thank you!

Thank you for your support on my RfA! When I submitted it, I was unsure of how I'd do, but the support was great. I promise that I won't do anything too stupid with the trust you've given me. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 19:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Stop by Wikipedia:Deletion reform!

Operating Thetan Dispute

What else do you think we should we put into that statement that it doesn't have right now? --Fernando Rizo T/C 19:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The OT levels deal with many things. Simply mentioning body thetans and Xenu is very misleading and indicates to me that this section was written by a critic of scientology without a neutral point of view as the subject of body thetans and xenu are often used by critics to ridicule Scientology. I will go to my church this evening and get some basic brochures which breifly explain the OT levels and then allow you and the other project members to decide on what to write. I am not saying to limit what you write to what what I present, I am just responding to your question by providing information I would write. Since I am a scientologist, for the sake of NPOV, I would prefer not to be involved in composing Scientology articles. Thank you. --AI 19:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- There's no such thing as too much information. I would certainly appreciate it if you got those pamplets. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando, here is what I can give you. The Church keeps these levels confidential and offers this description to general public who have not reached these OT levels. There is more information about these levels offered to the general public, but those descriptions are not as detailed as these. --AI 08:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New OT I
- This Solo-audited level is the first step a Clear takes toward full OT abilities, and that first step is a fresh causative OT viewpoint of the MEST universe and other beings.
OT II
- By confronting hidden areas of one's existence on the whole track, vast amounts of energy and attention are released. Those on this Solo-audited level experience a resurgence of self-determinism and native ability. OT II unlocks the aberrative factors on the whole track that have allowed the thetan to lose his innate freedom and ability and one achieves the ability to confront the whole track.
OT III - "The Wall of Fire"
- This Solo-audited level takes on through what is called the "Wall of Fire" that surrounds a previously impenetrable whole track mystery. What prevents a being from being himself? This level answers that question. Once complete, a being is free of the whole track overwhelm that has trapped him. Here he confronts and eradicates the fourth dynamic engram that has plagued this universe for millennia.
  These first three OT levels are available at an Advanced Organization or Flag. The part of the Bridge between Clear and OT III is called the Non-Interference Zone and includes the most crucial steps in one's progress to OT.
  These levels can together require several months of daily Solo auditing to complete and should be done in succession at one time.
New OT IV - OT Drug Rundown
- This level handles the hidden problems and stops in a being's universe caused by the effects of drugs and poisons on the whole track. This is the final polish that rids one of any last vestige of the effects of drugs on the spirit. Ministered at Advanced Organizations or Flag.
  Approximately 12 1/2 to 25 hours
New OT V
New Era Dianetics for OTs
- The Second Wall of Fire consists of 26 separate rundowns and has been described as dealing with "living lightning, the very stuff of life itself." This level addresses the last aspects of one's case that can prevent him from achieving total freedom on all dynamics. An audited level ministered at Advanced Organizations or Flag.
  Approximately 50 hours
NEW OT VI
Hubbard Solo New Era Dianetics for OTs (Solo NOTs) Auditing Course
- The training one receives before starting to solo audit on New OT VII is so powerful that it actually constitutes an entire OT level. On Solo NOTs one is dealing with complexities intended to crush one's true power and abilities as a thetan. Solo NOTs auditors acquire a wide range of auditing skills to handle the vast phenomena that can occur on OT VIII.
  Approximately 3-4 weeks with the new Solo Auditor Course done
NEW OT VII
Hubbard Solo New Era Dianetics for OTs Auditing
- On New OT VII one solo audits at home daily. This is a lengthy level, requiring a considerable amount of time to complete. It is the final pre-OT level, and culminates in attainment of the state of CAUSE OVER LIFE.
NEW OT VIII Truth Revealed
- This Solo-audited level addresses the primary cause of amnesia on the whole track and lets one see the truth of his own existence. This is the first actual OT level and brings about a resurgence of power and native abilities for the being himself.
  This may be done at the Flag Ship Service Organization only.

Fair use only

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to provide a little more general information about the OT levels. --AI 08:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spiderfan

lemme alone!--Spiderfan 23:57:17, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

GML

re: GML Articles:

The objective of these articles is to provide an easy to read (for GML, KML, geoRSS etc, users) introduction to GML. (I am the original author of GML). A previous writer created the GML article stub with a one line description of GML and a reference to the specification.

The GML specification is 600 pages long and very technical. You may not believe me but these articles are much simpler and easier to follow.

I have not written a single larger page at this stage, because we are trying to respond to the need for an open introduction to GML that is accessible to the Web Developer audience. It is my intention to re-edit this in the future into something more like an encyclopedia article. At this point in time, I think the user will find the short articles more digestible. I hope that this can meet with your approval. Our GML team will see that this happens I can assure you. <User:Rlake3 at 18:01, 3 August 2005>

Spanish Translation of the Week

I just setup the new translation. I was busy earlier this week so I didn't get a chance to set it up. In the future, you can set up the article if I'm not able to. Let me know if you would like to know the steps to take in setting up an article for translation. — J3ff 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article with the most votes is the one picked. If there is a tie, the article of the week goes to the one that was nominated first.
Remove the translation tag from the previous translation of the week. I usually leave an edit summary that includes a link back to [[Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week]].
On the article that is to be the new translation of the week, go to the Spanish version of the article and click "editar". Copy all of that text into the English article.

Generally we simply copy all of the Spanish text into the article. Last week with the Glacier article, a few Wikipedians from outside the project were concerned about the Spanish text remaining in the English article, so HTML comments used to hide the Spanish text. I think we should only use the HTML comment tags in situations where the article has a high volume of traffic because they make the translation process harder.

On the article that is to be the new translation of the week add a citation to the references section. If the article doesn't have a references section, make one. This is an example of the citation: *This article draws heavily on the [[:es:Gastronomía de Argentina|corresponding article]] in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, which was accessed in the version of [[August 3]], [[2005]].
Update the history page which is located here. Add the new translation article to the bottom of the list.
Update the log of recently translated articles here. Add the old translated article there if it is completed. Use ~~~~~ to make a timestamp without your signature.

If the previous translation of the week article has not been completed, add it to this list

If you have any questions feel free to ask me — J3ff 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latest PBY content

Yeah, you probably are being too paranoid about whitespace. :) I keep sectioning things off as soon as possible into headings because of the TOC - the further down the first subheading is, the further down the TOC gets. You could, in fact, head that section "Introduction" rather than "Background". Call it what you will, but the TOC is supposed to make getting to sections easy. If it's not within the first 'page', then there's not much of a point. I wouldn't worry about matching PBY to B-36 - just because the B-36 was featured doesn't make it flawless.

Anyway, book looks like it should be good! I just finally picked up my copy of Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II from storage, so I'll glean what I can from it and get some other articles started in the meantime. -eric ✈ 08:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

kmccoy's RFA

Hey, Fernando,

Thanks for your support on my RFA. I apparantly have you fooled into thinking that I'm enthusiastic, so my evil plan is succeeding. :) See you on IRC. kmccoy (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine of Argentina

There seems to be a situation brewing, similar to what happened last week with the Glacier article. See this: Talk:Cuisine_of_Argentina#Working_on_translation. We need to work to diffuse this. — J3ff 19:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I guess we could just use HTML comment tags again like last week. I'm just reluctant to do it to every article we translate because it makes the whole process harder. If we do use comment tags, we may end up doing that for every article we translate in the future. — J3ff 19:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Matthew the sequel

The POV that was in Authentic Matthew, an article you voted to delete, before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

marine team 6

you must be blind then becuase the last paragragh on the marines section for the united states says what training you would need to go through before being eligible to apply for team 6! <User:69.248.202.119 at 13:19, 4 August 2005>

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nadia Russ: NeoPopRealism

I have relisted Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nadia Russ: NeoPopRealism because of irregularities in the process. Please review your vote and indicate whether it stands or you wish to change it. -- Essjay · Talk 13:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Little Theatre

Hi Fernando! If its not to much trouble take another look at this will you? The article has had a nice expansion and edit. See ya! Hamster Sandwich 22:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anything for you, brother. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please make change to "Nadia Russ: NeoPopRealism" to make it look suitable, accordinly your knowledge of Wikipedia standarts. Neeg good English touch. Thank you