Jump to content

User talk:Andreas Parsch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Andreas. It's rather a funny occurrence, to cite your website in an article and then a few days later see you yourself editing that article. Small world. Anyway, here's your standard welcome message:


Welcome

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! It's always a pleasure to have another editor join—we can never have too many good editors.

Some useful stuff/Things to remember:

Cheers and good luck, Karl Dickman talk 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One brief postscript: as you are clearly interested in editing aircraft, you might consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft.

Please don't change YF-113G

[edit]

I know you believe AWST is wrong, but since you don't have a reference countering it, according to Wikipedia's policies, you can't go changing it based only on what you "believe". If you come up with a verifiable, reputable reference that backs up your change, fine, but until then, leave the referenced material alone, please. Akradecki 14:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head about "who you trust more". The problem is, for an encyclopedia like this, we have to rely on primary verifiable, reputable sources. The Google groups link is way down at the bottom of what Wikipedia considers a primary source. There's a lot of folks who'd argue that the Dreamlandresort website is decidely POV, and not as reliable, either. A widely respected industry mag like AvWeek carries a lot more weight as a source for an encyclopedia (and I say that trying to be as NPOV as possible, despite the fact that I do occasionally contribute photos to them). So, you might well believe the others as being more reliable, but from a policy point of view, AvWeek carries more weight. What I'd suggest is that you footnote the YF-113G entry with a short explanation that these other sources provide conflicting information, and provide the references as well in the footnote. Akradecki 17:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you say about verifiable sources to be used for encyclopedias makes sense. I'm not a Wikipedia author, and I guess it would have been a good idea to read the Wikipedia guidelines thoroughly ;-) - sorry! Anyway, while I'll stick to my personal opinion on the YF-113G issue, I'm not going to change this line in the article anymore.Andreas Parsch 07:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hello Andreas,

The original version of our article XGAM-71 Buck Duck is a blatant copyright violation of your page on the same subject. I have rewritten it substantially and think I have eliminated all copyright issues. If you would like me to delete the older revisions as copyright violations, I will gladly do so. Karl Dickman talk 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Karl! I don't think it's necessary to delete the old versions of the "Buck Duck" article. In the past, I've seen a few verbatim copies of my articles on Wikipedia (don't remember which ones), and didn't care a lot about it (mostly my website was listed as a reference anyway). In fact, I'm a fan of the whole Wikipedia project, and use it a lot as a "customer" while essentially not contributing anything at all. To make good for this "read only" behavior, I don't mind if the copyright notice on my webpages is interpreted a bit loosely ;-) by wiki authors.

KC-10

[edit]

Hi, I am a fan of your designation site, and I admire your effort in routing out good sources.

I have seen several mentions on Wikipedia and other sites (but not yours that I recall) that the KC-10 designation was assigned to the Extender in sequence, that the number "10" happened to be available by coincedence. However, I believe that this is not true.

I have a printed source from 1987 that states that three Jetstream 3Ms were assigned the designation C-10A by the USAF. It is my assumption that they were out of service when the KC-10A designation was assigned. This makes sense to me, as the YC-14 and YC-15 programs came before the KC-10 program.

Do you have any corroborating evidence either way? Thanks.

My source: Modern Commercial Aircraft, by William Green, Gordon Swanborough, and John Mowinski, Portland House/Salamander Books/Crown Publishers, 1987, p. 92. ISBN 0-517-63369-8. I do beleive I have seen this elsewhere in books from about the same time, but this is the only one I have on hand. - BillCJ 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Karl, I don't know how to break the thread! - BillCJ 04:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed :-)!Andreas Parsch 11:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have found the solution. This is from the Handley Page Jetstream article, though it is unsourced:

The US-built engine was enough to allow the US Air Force to consider it, eventually placing an order for eleven, to be known as the C-10A, otherwise known as the Jetstream 3M. However by the time they were ready to even consider starting construction, the USAF had already cancelled their order in early 1969, citing late delivery.

If this is true, then it seems the USAF just reused a designation originally assigned to an aircraft that was not delivered. It apparently did skip the -10 for a time, assigning the C-11, C-12, C-14, and C-15 beofre assigning the KC-10. - BillCJ 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill,
I'm really sorry that I didn't reply earlier! I must admit that until now I had completely missed that someone had added to this "talk" page - my fault!
Anyway, the C-10 slot was never skipped. The "C-10A" MDS had been officially allocated (and not "only" reserved) to the Jetstream. As evidence, C-10A appears in the January 1970 edition of DOD's official MDS listing ("Model Designation of Military Aircraft, Rockets and Guided Missiles"). It is perfectly possible to allocate an MDS designation before the actual purchase is settled. If the planned purchase is then cancelled, the result is an apparent gap in the series, but the MDS wasn't skipped in the context of the MDS system. A typical example for this difference is C-33 and C-34, none of which will appear in any listing of existing USAF aircraft. C-33A was officially assigned for a planned purchase of Boeing 747-400 aircraft, while C-34 was really skipped and never used at all.
The C-10A MDS had been removed from the list by 1974, but according to the official regulation it is not allowed to re-use an MDS, even if it has been cancelled. Of course, rules are there to be broken ;-), and the number 10 for the DC-10 tanker must have been so attractive :-).
As a side note, as far as I can tell the allocation of C-9 to military DC-9 was pefectly in sequence - just a lucky coincidence.Andreas Parsch 20:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstarring

[edit]
The Working Man's Barnstar
For your work on improving the List of military aircraft of the United States article. Keep it up! Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you :-)! I didn't even know that there is such a "kudos" system on Wikipedia ;-). Note to self: Must read up on Wiki internals!Andreas Parsch 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andreas_Parsch&oldid=204616733"