Jump to content

User talk:Ken keisel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Ken keisel/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

f-14

I don't recognize you from before, but I hope moving the Iranian F-14s makes sense to you. The F-14 attracts too much interest and content to all fit on one large page, but if you insist, then let's put it on talk first. --matador300 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage Protected

Hi, I just protected your userpage due to anonymous vandalism. The protection will expire in 24 hours, but let me know if you want it off sooner. Cheers, alphachimp 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

SIAI-Marchetti FN.333

Hi Ken. Your entry on this aircraft had to be deleted since it was practically a direct copy-and-paste from this website, creating a copyright problem for Wikipedia. As it happens, we already had an article on this aircraft anyway, at Nardi FN.333 Riviera that you might like to expand using your own words. You can also find a list of other aircraft articles we need here - maybe you can help out with some of these? Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason that your contribution keeps getting deleted is because you are directly copying text from another website. If you do it again, you will be blocked from contributing to Wikipedia.
The text that was used was altered sufficiantly to avoid any copyright issues, but keep in mind that the contents of the passage is considered a "statement of facts", and as such would fall under the "fair use" rules regarding copyright law (in other words, if the object of the text is to provide dates, locations, or proper names in reference to facts or events you can't limit or control its use). - Ken keisel (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It was clearly and demonstrably not altered sufficiently - since I was immediately able to locate the website where the text had been lifted from. Additionally, fair use has nothing to do with whether somebody's intellectual property is a "statement of facts" or not. Fair use merely governs under what (limited) circumstances someone can make use of someone else's copyright without having to obtain a licence to do so. I think that what you're thinking of is that a fact itself cannot be subject to copyright; however, the expression of that fact or a compilation of facts certainly is. Anyway, it's academic now since in its most recent incarnation it does indeed seem to bear practically no resemblance to the webpage it was cribbed from. -- Rlandmann (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you've got the idea. While "facts" cannot be copyrighted, a sentence like "The Constitution was signed on July 4th, 1776." CAN be copyrighted if it's incorporated into a larger work. Fortunately such writing would fall under the "fair use" catagory, which would not bar anyone else from copying such a sentence. It simply depends to what extent the sentence is merely a "statement of facts". In the case of the article I drew from, almost the entire paragraph I used was a "statement of facts", though I did make some modifications to it anyway. In any case, I've altered it a bit more, and like the result much better now as well Ken keisel (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


I agree with your reasoning that the article is best located under SIAI-Marchetti and have relocated it accordingly. Feel free to expand it in your own words, but there really isn't enough difference between the Nardi prototypes and the SIAI-Marchetti production version to justify separate articles - after all, SIAI-Marchetti didn't even allocate their version a new model number. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the name change! I'd looked for an article on the Riviera before creating the SIAI-Marchetti article and couldn't find one. I'm sure having it under the SIAI-Marchetti name will make it a bit easier for people to find. I've merged all the unique content from the old Nardi article with the SIAI-Marchetti article to give the most complete combination of both. The old Nardi article was small, little more than a stub really, so it didn't contribute that much to the updated article. It seemed to focus mostly on the three early pre-production aircraft, not the final production version. This article still needs a lot more information than what's there, and a photo would be nice, but at least it now has enought information to be useful. My information is all from the "International Aircraft Directory", which I've cited in the reference section. I'm not sure how to add individual citations, but if someone else does please feel free to do so. The information about the use of Riviera engines to upgrade Seabees is from first-hand communication with Seabee and Riviera owners. If there's a proper way to cite first-hand information please let me know and I'll correct it in the article. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue here has never been whether the old article should have been expanded or not - the expansion is a welcome change. The problem was with the copyright nature of the text being added, and the creation of a separate article for a barely different aircraft.
First-hand information is never acceptable on Wikipedia (see the Original Research policy) since it is not verifiable by others. I have therefore removed the comment about the engines being used to re-engine Seabees.
That's a bit of a shame, considering that only 26 were made, and it's very unlikely anyone will publish a book about it. In such a case, speaking with owners is about the only way to obtain addidional information on the aircraft's use and history - Ken keisel (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, thanks for your work on improving this article - it's way better than how it started out. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. I just hope others can add a bit more, it's still a rather small article. I'd also love to see a photo added of this most unusual aircraft. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to USS Topeka (SSN-754). Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. also on USS Albany (SSN-753) -MBK004 20:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got a couple of books that make mention of the unique construction of the Albany and Topeka, but I'm not home right now. I'll look them up later today. I was a bit surprised that no one had caught and added this information by now. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

Ken, I didn't delete anything by you. What I did to your article about the jet jeep was move it to a new name, so as to better comply with our naming standards.

Do you believe in apologizing? DS (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Did you not notice that in the process of moving it you deleted all the contents of the article! I can't retreive any of it! That's over a day's worth of research and two hours of typing gone! I'm am giving you your fist warning to replace or retreive the information you destroyed or I will contact the site administartors to have you blocked. You discussion page is crammed full of people already upset with your deletion of their articles, and I'm a bit surprised you haven't been blocked already. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ken. I don't think you quite understand how article-moving works... or, for that matter, how article history works. I did not delete any of the material. It's all still there. I inspected the article history, and it looks like you deleted the material (although I'm certain it was by accident). Furthermore, all the material is still available by going through the article history. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XH-26_Jet_Jeep&action=history

Now, click on .... say, the second-oldest of those versions. Then click "edit". You'll see. DS (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey. As an uninvolved editor, I'd like to point out that moving a page does not delete any of the content. If the content that was restored is incorrect, then it was incorrect before it was moved. I suggest that you restore the text that you'd written before, and then work from there, as leaving a page blank usually ends up with it being deleted (though you can recreate it). Ale_Jrbtalk 20:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You say that "what's left is no longer accurate" but it's the same as your last version. You can compare the two versions here. The only other version of the article is here. --Snigbrook (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    • No, this bloke deleted a two thousand word article by merging it with a pre-existing stub while I was saving it. As a result only the stub survived, and the article was lost. This fellow is acting as a site administrator without understanding that his actions delete unsaved work in progress. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello

First of all, don't worry. Wikipedia can be a bit frustrating at times, but DragonflySixtyseven was just trying to help by moving the article to a better name. We're all a bunch of volunteers here, but most are really just trying to help. It sounds like you had unsaved changes in the edit window when Dragonfly moved the article, and perhaps things got confused when you then tried to save? You would probably have gotten a warning about an edit conflict, and what looked like an empty article. The site tries to make sure that nothing is lost, but that is one of the few cases when it is easy to lose your changes.

A good idea when you encounter problems like that is to copy the edit window of the entire article and save the text on your computer so you know you have the text while you investigate what has happened. One thing about Wikipedia is that everybody is free to edit any article at any time; occationally two people will try to edit the same thing at the same time and then things can get confusing.

PS. It looked like the beginnings of a great article. I still look forward to see the finished one!

henrik•talk 20:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks Henrik. What you're saying is partially true. What is different is that I had been constantly saving the article while I was writing it so that I wouldn't have that very problem (yes, it has happened before to me). What this bloke did was merge my two thousand word article to a pre-existing "stub" that I decided not to use because the title was incorrect for the subject (it lacked the manufacturer's name). When you do that the article that is merged to the pre-existing article is lost completely and only the original article and title is retained. I had planned on doing something like that with my article by merging the old stub to it when this bloke named DragonflySixtyseven merged my article to the stub first. If I'd have had another minute or two it wouldn't have been a problem. I didn't get upset until I saw his fellow's duscussion page and saw that it's crammed full of other people complaining about him doing the same thing to them. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi again. You can reply either here or over at my talk page, and either way I'll see it.
Every time anyone clicks "Save page", it is recorded in the history log. So let's see if we can figure out what happened here. Here is the XH-26 page history. What we can see there is that you created it todayhere, then did some changes here and then Dragonfly67 moved it from is the the title "AMERICAN HELICOPTER XH-26 JET JEEP" to "XH-26 Jet Jeep" here.
I'm not quite sure what happened, since none of that meant merging information with an earlier stub. I'm not sure how your expansion got lost. My best guess is still that something happened while you tried saving after he had moved the article. I don't think there was any malice involved at all. I would suggest we keep the stub in the meantime instead of having the article blank too.
Just a note: One of the reasons Dragonfly67 has a lot of messages complaining about deletion is that he is a pretty active administrator - he's deleted over hundred articles this september alone. Even though the vast majority of his deletions are correct, people aren't likely to write to him about the ones they agree with. henrik•talk 21:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


The article that currently appears in the history is the original stub that I was attempting to replace. It contains none of my text or formatting. I have no idea why my name appears on the history associated with it. The article that I was writing under the title "American Helicopter XH-26 Jet Jeep" was saved at least four times while I was working on it, but none of my saves appear anywhere in the current article's history. What DragonflySixtyseven did was merge my article after I had finished it with the other "stub" article (under a different title) in the wrong order. As a result, the entire contents of my article and it's history were wiped-out, as when you merge two pre-existing articles together only the contents and history of one is retained.

What DragonflySixtyseven should have done is either linked my article to the stub until the conflict could have been examined, or contacted the authors of both articles in an effort to create a single article encompassing the best features of each. The reason this fellow is catching so much flack from users is that he's merging articles without doing either of the two things I've just mentioned. As a result one person's (or more) article is getting completely deleted at the expense of the other. As you say, I doubt he's hearing anything from the fellow who's article survives. One final thing, if he's an administrator than he should have known that my title for the article was the correct one under Wikipedia standards as it included the required name of the vehicle's manufacturer, while the other "stub" was using an unacceptable title (in other words, if you write an article about the "Buick Le Sabre" you have to title the article "Buick Le Saber", not just "Le Saber"). As such, the "stub" should have eventually been merged to my article as the current title he retained is the incorrect version. I'm sorry, but based on what I've seen and what others are saying about him on his own discussion page, if he is an administrator he's not a very good or knowledgeable one. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just thought you might be interested that XH-26 Jet Jeep is correct in accordance with the guidelines for American military aircraft at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming. I have had a look at your deleted contribution and as far as the records show all your contributions are in the XH-26 article history, most of it was deleted by one of your edits which was restored by Henrik which you then deleted yourself twenty minutes later. It was restored again by Ale rjb but you deleted all the content again ten minutes later. Just take care when you edit and if you make a mistake then use the undo function. It now looks like it could be a good article so please keep up your good work on it just take care. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I actually had created a much longer article, and saved it several times, but when the two articles were merged my article was deleted. There's something very strange going on with the way DragonflySixtyseven merged the two articles because it deleted all the stored history of the article i was writing and kept only the history of the original stub article. In any case, I've restored the article as much as i can at the moment. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I have done some tweaks to XH-26 mainly format and templates to agree with the latest project guidelines. I tried to copy your spec figures accurately into the latest template but apologies if I got them wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks MilborenOne!! I'm always thankful for any help with templates. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

C-82 Packet

Just to remind you about edit warring and the fact that you keep re-adding content which is clearly in dispute and under discussion is not really appropriate. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is the continual REMOVAL of disputed content that is not slanderous or misleading in nature. If you check wikipedia's guidelines, the content is supposed to remain in the article until the disput is resolved. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

XH-26

Hi again Ken and thanks for the work you've done in writing this article.

I thought I'd offer a little insight on what seems to have happened to your "lost work". I've checked around, and I can assure you that no version longer than the present one was ever uploaded to Wikipedia. That being the case, it looks like you almost certainly ran foul of an edit conflict, which is what happens when one editor starts editing a page (in this case, you), a second editor makes an edit to the page and saves it (DragonflySixtyseven) and then the first editor tries saving their version of the page. In this scenario, the first editor runs a real risk of losing their work.

In the wiki environment where anyone is free to edit any article at any time, this is a very real and unavoidable hazard - the "second editor" doesn't know and can't know that someone else has clicked the "edit button" moments previously ona computer somewhere else on the planet. There are some ways that you can minimise the risk, though:

  1. place the tag {{inuse}} at the top of the article and save it before clicking "edit" again to start your work. This will alert other editors that there's major work underway and asks them not to make any changes until you're done and have removed the inuse tag.
  2. build the article in multiple, small changes rather than making any single, large change. This is the wiki equivalent of remembering to save your work while word processing. This way, if there's an edit conflict, database error, computer problem on your end, or any other issue, you don't risk losing more than a small chunk.
  3. alternatively, copy the contents of the edit screen, and paste them into a word processor or text editor and work on the article on your computer first, before pasting it back into the edit screen and uploading it to Wikipedia. One drawback of this approach is that you risk destroying the work of other editors, since the article may well have changed in the time between you pasting it into your word processor and your being ready to upload your version to Wikipedia. Another drawback is that most modern word processors will try to "help" you by making subtle formatting changes to your text which are not necessarily compatible with Wikipedia, such as the use of smart quotes, for example.
  4. as a final alternative, some editors like to build the article in their own "userspace" first (eg, User:Ken_keisel/XH-26 Jet Jeep) and then use the "move" button to move it into "articlespace" when they're done. This will protect you from edit conflicts (since no-one else but you should be editing material in your userspace without your say-so), but you're still vulnerable to losing your work to a database error on Wikipedia's end or a computer problem on your end if you're writing big slabs of text without saving them.

Personally, I use both 1 and 2 above when building or expanding an article. I'm sorry to say, but developing a 2,000-word article without saving it in the interim (either by progressive small uploads or saving a local copy to your computer) was just asking for trouble. DragonflySixtyseven did nothing improper - he had absolutely no way of knowing that you were still working on the article or that the revision that you were making was so extensive. Unfortunately, we have no tower here to tell you that someone's just put a 172 where you're about to land a 747... or to tell the 172 pilot that someone's about to put down a 747 on top of him!

The other thing to familiarise yourself with is what to do in case there is an edit conflict. If this is what happened, you will receive a warning when you hit the "save" button. Instead of being taken back to the article page, you'll still be seeing the edit screen, with a note at the top of it indicating an edit conflict. If you just hit the "save" button again, you will absolutely, positively lose your work. To avoid this, you can continue scrolling down the page, where you will see a second edit box - your original, unsaved work will still be contained here. You can now copy-and-paste material from the bottom edit screen to the top edit screen, and when you hit save, your work should still be there. Yes, it's tricky - which is why it's better to avoid the situation in the first place by one or more of the methods I've suggested above.

Finally, the situation would probably never have occurred if you'd named the article in line with Wikipedia naming conventions; specifically, not using ALL CAPITALS for the title. Something like AMERICAN HELICOPTER XH-26 JET JEEP stands out like a sore thumb to anyone doing cleanup of new articles, and will almost certainly be moved/redirected very quickly. If you'd called it "American Helicopter XH-26 Jet Jeep", it would probably have stood longer before someone familiar with Wikipedia's aircraft naming conventions came along and moved it to "XH-26 jet Jeep".

Hope this helps! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rlandmann, that information helps a great deal, and I really appreciate you taking all that time to write such an extensive explanation. I will certainly use suggestions 1 and 2 from now on without fail. Regarding the title of the article, I know I didn't use all caps when I made the title. Is it possible that something in the formatting caused it to be generated in all caps? Also, am I correct that the title of an article concerning a device should always include the manufacturer (as in "American Helicopter XH-26 Jet Jeep" as opposed to just "XH-26 Jet jeep)? I recall having a discussion on this matter back at the dawn of Wikipedia and stressing that any article about a manufactured product should always include the manufacturer's name in the title. At that time I got an agreement from the administrator, but it's possible that things have changed since then. If that is still the case then why did an administrator merge my article to one using the shorter title in such a way as to retain the shorter title for the finished article? That would seem to violate convention. If possible, can you assist me in restoring the title of the article to "American Helicopter XH-26 Jet Jeep"?
Thank you again for all your help, it is most appreciated. _ Ken keisel (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all. It would be really nice if you could find the time to leave DragonflySixtyseven a note apologising for some of the comments you made in the wake of what was purely a misunderstanding. It doesn't take much effort to spread a little good will :)
As for how the article ended up named in all caps - I have no idea. There's nothing in the Wiki software that will change the case of an article title from what you type in. Do you remember what you did to start creating the new article? As in, did you click on a redlink in another article? Modify the URL in your browser's address bar? Or something else?
You're right about the names of articles about products usually being prefaced by the manufacturer's name. However, US military aircraft (and US military hardware in general) are an exception, and "XH-26 Jet Jeep" is indeed the correct name for the article, per Wikipedia's aircraft naming conventions. In these cases, we use designation-name, or manufacturer-designation if there's either no official name, or multiple official names. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wyandotte Toys

Ken no reason why you cant move the article yourself the target Wyandotte Toys does not exist. Just use the move tab at the top of the page. You may want to consider creating Wynadotte Toys as a redirect back to the All Metal Products Company instead of moving the article (Just add the code #REDIRECT [[All Metal Products Company]] to the new page). If you have a problem which ever way then let me know. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the Wyandotte Toys article it now automatically redirects - glad to help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder we dont copy and past text from one article to the other as it causes problem in that the history of contributers is lost which is against the GFDL licence. Articles should be moved to keep their history. Toys now redirects to the AMPC article so I think it is alright as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Hi Ken - just a "friendly reminder" that when you add material to Wikipedia, you need to also provide the source of the information. You haven't done this for the details of the preservation of the XB-19 or XH-26 that you recently added.

At the very least, the source of the information must be included in the "References" section at the end of the article; and current practice is increasingly to include a direct citation with footnote (although this isn't strictly required). What were the sources of the information that you added? Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither one will be straightforward, but I'll look into it; I remember seeing some debate about whether items such as your email from the curator should be considered valid sources for Wikipedia articles, but I don't know what decision (if any) was reached.
Remember that the cornerstone here is always verifiability - can people using Wikipedia (and our readers far, far outnumber our editors/contributors) check this fact? Which is why, by and large, we stick to published sources like books, magazines, and reliable websites. Leave it with me! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I know exactly what you mean; however, as policy stands, "nothing at all" is preferable to information that has been obtained through personal experience or word-of-mouth. While that's a shame in many respects, I think the reasoning behind it is sound, and it serves to enhance and safeguard the "authoritativeness" of Wikipedia (an ongoing fundamental issue for a project of this nature). I'm sure there won't be a problem with information garnered from a museum placard (the question is only how to cite it), but a personal email might be a different story. More as I learn more! --Rlandmann (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The quality of Ms Parke's work is not in question; it's simply a question of whether Joe Citizen (having read the Wikipedia article) can verify the facts contained in it. As the policy puts it, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
While I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that the information is true and correct, I', not so sure that Joe Citizen can check that these facts have "already been published by a reliable source". I hope you can get a feeling for the distinction here. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ken - for both the XB-19 and O-38, I've simply placed a note between "ref" tags based on where the information has come from. Personally, I think that the material in the O-38 article (while a great story!) seriously unbalances the article and would be more suitable for Wiki Warbirds (which, incidentally, doesn't share Wikipedia's strict policies about the type of sources allowable, AFAIK). After much soul-searching, I've removed the info about the XH-26 purchase from Van Nuys, since one of the verifiability criteria is that the information must have been published. I was successfully able to locate the similar debate that I had recalled from some months ago, and it confirmed this interpretation of the policy for me.

I hate to ask the question... but now what about the comments about the originality of the B-18 turret? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a tag referencing it to the placard. Not that it's got anything to do with aircraft, but Bridge of Dreams needs specific sources too; simply naming the organisation isn't sufficient. Did the information come from a book put out by the visitors' centre? pamphlet? Signpost beside the bridge? I took a look at the county visitors' centre website, but couldn't find anything like that level of detail there... --Rlandmann (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Great - then that's what needs to go in the "References" section of the article --Rlandmann (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The full set of citation parameters for web content is at {{cite web}}; I've added a reference to the page you pointed me to as an example of some of the more commonly used ones. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
PS - since you've obviously been there, perhaps you took a photo of the bridge you could upload?

Berlin, Holmes County, Ohio

I've formatted the references; if you used any other pages on the "Berlin Village Info" site apart from the History page, they should get separate references as well (I had to go off-site to find the publisher information). You can also see how to create a direct citation connecting the Amish population information with the reference that it came from.

In the article itself, I'm a little concerned about this statement:

Do you have a reference for thiso? It reads like a personal opinion. Without a reference, it would have to go (although it would be fine for Wikitravel). --Rlandmann (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem: your edits continue to be somewhat OR-ish and POV, and the version that you've restored has less proper section headers and extra links (for example, to Amish). I'm not opposed to you, or trying to delete all that you add (otherwise, I would have removed the big History section); it's just that I'm ensuring that the page is as close to Wikipedia's standards as possible. By the way, you appear to have wondered why I didn't notice your message: as you didn't sign your talk page notice, it was signed by a bot, and my watchlist doesn't include actions done by bots. Nyttend (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:V and WP:RS: if no newspaper or book or reliable website has covered this aspect, nothing may be said: posting something without proper sourcing violates Wikipedia's policies. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I assumed that you were a Wikipedia newcomer. If you've been involved in this issue, you know that images are exceptions to the OR policy: it's quite accepted to say that the Sutliff Bridge is impassable to vehicular traffic because of major damage. And you should know that these pages don't cite other pages for their sources: they are policy pages decided on by consensus, with other articles noted in order to explain or otherwise clarify their meanings. Of course we don't necessarily need to cite a statement such as "English is the language in which this encyclopedia article is written", but an Amish tourist industry in Berlin is not at all obvious to me, whether I'm at college (Beaver County, Pennsylvania), at home (Logan County, Ohio), or anywhere else, and as an Ohio native I'm sure I have far better access to sources relative to Holmes County and know far more about it than do the vast majority of people worldwide. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you prove it to me? If so, that's acceptable; if not, it's not. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nerpa

I've added a citation; but I wouldn't recommend using it as a model. That article mixes citation footnotes up together with the sources themselves. While this is permissible (and certainly better than nothing), it's not what I'd call best practice.

I'm also noticing a whole heap of unreferenced contributions by you to a variety of aircraft articles, including:

Could you please revisit those articles and cite where the information comes from? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem; but I'll need the name of the article or section that the information comes from, and the author of that article or section (if provided). --Rlandmann (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - a couple more details: is it only a one page article? If not, what pages of the magazine does it span? and is there a volume and/or issue number for the Jan 09 issue provided? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
OK - done. Now where does the claim about the court siding with the USAF over the CAF Twin Mustang come from?
You see, any information added to Wikipedia without a reference is liable to be removed at any time, and some people here take that to mean "should be removed - on sight!".
I think you make very valuable contributions to this encyclopedia; but unless you get into the habit of saying where you're getting your facts from, you're running the constant risk of seeing that hard work summarily undone. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Whirlwind

As you know you cant tell if two people are editing the same page, I think you have found the dangers of doing large edits! can I suggest you either save your changes in smaller bits and dont try and do big edits in one go or you could put the template {{Inuse}} at the top of the page which tells other editors to keep away. If you get an edit conflict I found that if you use the browser back button you can get to your original edit (as long as you dont select anything else). Another idea is to copy your changed text into notepad before you try to save it back to wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bell UH-13J Sioux

Hi Ken - I've just redirected the article you contributed under this title to point back to the main Bell 47 article. There really isn't enough different about this version to sustain a separate article about it.

That being said, the facts from the article can be incorporated into the Bell 47 article. Some of these are definitely significant, such as the first trip by a US president in a helicopter.

Unfortunately, without references to say where these facts come from, I wasn't able to salvage any of this material. If you can supply references, I'm more than happy to help you to incorporate the material.

Can I delicately suggest that you really need to learn how to reference material on Wikipedia? If you had referenced the facts in this article, I would have been able to move them across to the Bell 47 article myself at the time of the redirection. As things stand now, the facts are lost, buried under the redirect... --Rlandmann (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points. Wikipedia articles on aircraft are generally arranged by type, not subtype. Bell regarded this as a Model 47, and the USAF regarded it as a H-13, regardless of the level of airframe commonality. We are guided by what the manufacturers and/or operators say about a type.
The only time we split a subtype off is if there is so much to say about it that its description would seriously unbalance the general article. If this were to happen, there might be a case to split the Model 47H, 47J, 47K, and 47L (together, also including the UH-13J, HH-13Q, HUL-1, and HTL-7) from the main Model 47 article. While there were only two UH-13Js, I see nothing that makes them substantially different from civil 47J-2s (Rangers, not Jet Rangers - the Jet Ranger is the Model 206) or, for the purposes of an encyclopedia article, from the rest of the "clad" members of this family. I would therefore strenuously oppose any move to split these two solitary airframes off from the main article.
As far as references go, the ISBN is completely irrelevant. There is no system of referencing that requires it. Some Wikipedia editors choose to include this detail, but it's strictly optional. Waiting for an ISBN is no excuse not to reference your work.
I also note that you are continuing to add unsourced information to a wide variety of articles. Please stop. I strongly urge you to go back and add citations for the material you added on 26 November and to the Russian types listed above.
Sorry to bring out the stick, but if this material remains unreferenced after this weekend, I'll be removing it as unsourced; and if you continue to add unsourced material to Wikipedia, you may even find yourself blocked from contributing.
If you need any help with adding references, I remain only too happy to help you; but you can't continue relying on other people to do this for you - you have to learn to do it yourself. It's really not hard. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Ken, I've done a lot of work on the various Air Force One articles, and I must say I don't even remeber hearing of this model. In all seriousness, do you know if they used the AF1 callsign for the birds, since they were operated by the USAF? If nothing else, I'd suggest continuing to work on the article on your own userspace (RL or I can set one up for you.) Any of the relevant info you have or can find, properly refernced, can go somewhere, if not in a separate UH-13J article. I actually have about 30 sandbox articles on my userspace that aren't "ready for primetime", and many other editors do the same thing. Anyway, .
Here's a cheat on references: find the style you like or want to use in some other article, and just copy it when you need to make a reference, changing the info to match your source. THat's how I do it, and it's how I make a new article too! I just find one on the aircraft type I'm doing (fixed-wing, copter, etc.) and copy it. I have to be mindful to get everything changed, as it's embarrassing to have a new user or IP say something like "this page is about Flyer Z50 so why did the heading say Airplane 606?" - BillCJ (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Ken, I created the Bell 201 article because I thought we would have been able to find more info on it than we did. Origianlly, the 207 Sioux Scout was also on the 201 page, but that's since been separated on its own. The 207 is definitely unique, but I agree with you that the 201 is not different enough to be separate. Thanks for reminding me about it, and I'll see about merging it this weekend, if there's no opposition to doing that. Sorry if that caused you any problems. - BillCJ (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As for the UH-13J - the difference here is that Bell identified the 201 as a separate model. On Wikipedia, we simply follow the designations applied by the manufacturer and/or operator. Prima facie, the level of commonality has little to do with it.
And while the UH-13J is substantially different from the standard "Bubble Bells" like the Models 47D and 47G, how is it different from the clad members of the family I listed above? Like I said, splitting these en masse from the main article might make sense.
And you're correct - the previous article can still be accessed here --Rlandmann (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
PS – great idea, BillCJ. Ken, I've copied the material here to enable you to continue working on it easily. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Ken, I've also noted your comment on BillCJ's talk page. I think you're under the impression that the UH-13J was somewhat more different/special than it really was. There were two main branches of the Bell 47 family; the archetypal version with the bubble canopy and trusswork tailboom (major production versions – Model 47D and 47G) and a whole range of versions with enclosed fuselages and conventional, clad tailbooms (major production version – Model 47J). For whatever reason, the latter branch of the family isn't well remembered today, but they were widely produced, and the two UH-13J airframes were just two machines amongst hundreds of near-identical helicopters. The first member of this branch was the 47H (www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/bell/bell_47h_1.jpg) and the major production version was the 47J Ranger (picture), which also included the USAF UH-13J and USN HUL-1 and HH-13Q. Other members of this branch were the 47K (www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/bell/bell_47k.jpg), operated by the USN as the HTL-7 and TH-13N, and the experimental 47L (can't find a picture - only 2 built) evaluated by the USN as the HUL-1M and UH-13R. I hope this clears things up a little. The two UH-13Js were not unique in any substantial way, although I have no doubt that the cabin fittings were somewhat more luxurious than a standard civil 47J-2. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

To put it in perspective, a quick "head count" shows Bell building around 340 of the Model 47J, with another 120 built by Agusta in Italy under licence! All the other members of the "clad" branch of the Bell 47 family amounted to around another 50 machines on top of this. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I looked at the NMUSAF's page on the UH-13J here. The first line states: "The UH-13J was the Air Force’s version of the Bell commercial model 47J Ranger helicopter." The image on that page shows a helicopter very similar to this Bell 47J. - BillCJ (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We follow manufacturer/operator codes as our prima facie guide to what should be split because it avoids having to make arbitrary judgments on the question. Note that while VC-25 is a distinct designation (there is no C-25 without the "V" modified mission prefix), so we have an article about it. On the other hand, the VC-137 is described as part of the main C-137 article. We also take our lead from other encyclopedias of aircraft. You'll be hard-pressed to find any encyclopedia of aircraft that lumps the MiG-23 and MiG-27 together into one article.
On a purely pragmatic note, we do have articles on individually significant airframes (like Memphis Belle, or more to the point, the two presidential VC-137Cs) if and when there's enough to say about them. If there was enough published on the UH-13Js to support an article like this, you'd have a point.
Similarly, there's enough to say about the distinct Tu-22M to support a separate article; just like I suggested earlier that there's enough out there to support a separate article about the late Bell 47 models (47H throught 47L – note, not H-47 – that's the Chinook. These are Bell model numbers, not USAF designations). --Rlandmann (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find that between us, RL and I create, split or merge as many articles as several other WP:AIR editors combined. I only so that to say we have some experience with the issue here. I am going to be pedantic with what I say next, but I'm not assuming you don't know any of this. I'm just trying to get us all woking on the same page, and covering the basics as WP:AIR has tried to set them out.
There are several types of articles about aircraft, and each are somewhat unique. There are type articles about a major aircraft type (707, F-16), which cover the basic type. Within each type, of course, there can be variant articles when a variant is substantially different enough to warrant a separate article, or when a vairiant actually becomes a closely related type (F-18, F-18E/F). When to keep variants togerther or split them can be a very subjective, and often contentious, issue. Each editor has his own requirements or guidelines, and often they don't agree with another person's ideas. WP:AIR has tried to create some guidelines on this, with RL being one of the major persons contributing to these guidelines. A type article should give a basic overview of an aircraft type, and should balance all the information on development, design, history, variants and so on without overwhelming the reader with too much detail, and without too much focusing on one aspect to the dertriment of the others. Some articles will be very long, such as Concorde or A380, but most of the sections don't overshado the others. WPAIR believes that all aircraft "types" are notable, and should at some point have their own articles.
The problem of course is when does a variant become a separate type? That can be subjective, and the decision of whether or not to combine such types together as often as not rests on how much notable content can be found. I have actually merged two bad, stubby articles on related types into one decent article, then a year or two later split them again when article had grown much larger (bell 427 and 429). Also, I have often piggybacked related types with existing pages, then later split them up. I did this with the Bell 222, adding better coverage on the 230 and 430, but later splitting the 430 off to its own page. Also, we ofthen, but not always, cover military and civil versions separately. This usually has to do with role, content, and changes to the airframe for the various missions. Almost all the major US civil jetliners also have major military varaints, and so are covered separately. The exception is the DC-8: it has served in militaries, but primarily in a transport role not much different than the civil variants. There was an article on the EC-24 testbed for the US military (one conversion), but as it was onle one or 2 sentences long, we merged it with the main article.
There are also individual aircraft articles which cover notable airframes. This includes Memphis Belle, Enola Gay, and other aircraft which have done somthing unique, special, or otherwise notable. With over 12,000 B-17s produced, we obviously can't have an article on every single B-17, so we have to have some kind of threshold on when to create an individual article. But even for aircraft produced in limited numbers, we don't have articles on every one. For individual aircraft articles, the threshold is usually notability, as defined by WP: is the aircraft known for something which has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Again, this can be highly subjective and contentious.
Finally, there are one-off aircraft which both a type and well-known individual aircraft. These include the Spirit of St. Louis, the Spruce Goose, and so on. For most of these types, notability is not a problem. Sometimes there may be two or three airframes of such aircraft, but generally each one is not notable on its own.
When I first started on WP a little over 2 years ago, there was one article on Air Force One. It was basically an aircraft type article for the VC-25A, but also covered the subject matter and history of AF1. Separate;y, there was the main Boeing 707 article, but not article on the transport C-137 roles for the US military. The related E-3 and E-6 did have their own pages. Over time, I was able to create the current C-137 page, and along with some other editors, we combined several articles to streamline the C-135 and KC-135 variants onto just those pages. I also created a CC-137 page, as that type had a unique role in Canadian service as a tanker/transport. VC-137C (AF1) covereage was split between the AF1 page and the C-137 page.
Eventually, I split off the VC-25 as an aircraft article, leaving the AF1 page as a subject article. There are of course two VC-25s, but they were purcased together, and operate interchangeably. Some time later, I sat down to create an article solely about the two VC-127Cs, but would you believe that, an hour before I actully started, another editor had created the SAM 26000 and SAM 27000 pages? He did a good job starting them, and has continued to work on them since then. Since the 2 VC-137Cs did not serve concurrently (one started in 1961, and the other in 1972), it does makes sense to cover them separately, and the articles have help up. Sometimes variant articles are created, but the origianl editor loses interest, and they never become what they could have been, and end up being merged in somewhere else. That did not happen with the VC-137s, and thats a good thing. The VC-137Cs are only covered eleswhere on the C-137 Stratoliner as part of the Variants, and there should not be a separate article on them in addition two the SAM 26000/27000 pages.
All that to say this: We probably could create an article on the Bell 47J Ranger, and make it sustainable. It would include the UH-13Js. The fact that the UH-13Js only served the president for 5 years, and were retired 5 years later, means there's probably not a lot of history content out there to be added, especially when compared with the 30+ year histories of SAM 26000/27000. In addition, the Marine One page covers both the VH-3 and VH-60, and that is probably the way is should be. The VH-71 Kestrel is covered seperately from them, and from the EH101 page, because it's a US military type, and the content was getting long enough to warrant a separate page. And yes, I split that one off too, along with the CH-149. Both variants have had a colorful political background which is better covered in their own articles. We don't have something like that with the UH-13Js. As I have said elsewhere thouhgh, they do seserve coverage somewhere, and for now, that would be wherever the 47J Rangers are covered, and on the Air Force One page. - BillCJ (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

F-106 Delta Dart & Piasecki H-21

I noticed in these two articles you list a reference as United States Air Force Museum (1975 edition). Is this a book or a pamphlet or something? You really need to provide all the details for a paper publication (assuming that is what it is) as outlined in Wikipedia:Citation_templates. As a minimum this would include author, date, page, ISBN or publication number and publisher. Otherwise it really isn't verifiable.

Also can you please make your edit summaries a bit more descriptive, always writing "updated entry" doesn't say anything about what you have done. Please have a read through Wikipedia:Edit_summary for some more info on this issue. Thanks - Ahunt (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

re:ISBN Maybe this is where some of the confusion above is coming from? ISBN/publication number is not a requirement of any referencing system I'm aware of. Note that our How-to on the subject specifically says that "The ISBN (which is wikified automatically) is optional". But the core of any referencing system is the same: author, title, publisher, place, and year.
Ken – I've been doing some digging around myself for publication details of this book. Is yours the edition with the P-47s on the cover? If so, I can help you work out the finer details. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Perfect! So, in the body of the article itself, you need to put (for example):
<ref>''United States Air Force Museum'' 1975, p.75</ref>
or:
<ref>''United States Air Force Museum'' 1975, pp.66–68</ref>
Then, in the "References" or "Bibliography" section at the end of the article, you need to put
{{cite book |title=United States Air Force Museum |year=1975 |publisher=Air Force Museum Foundation |location=Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio}}
That's all there is to it!
Referencing magazines is just a little more tricky, but we'll cover that when you get your magazine back from your friend. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dyke Delta

You've made a substantial contribution and improvement to this article – thank you. And thank you for referencing your material this time! However, it needs just a little more detail.

For a magazine or journal, the details we need are:

  • Title of the journal
  • Publication date (varies - may be day, month, or even season: "Winter 2009")
  • Volume and issue number (often only found in small print on the title page somewhere)
  • Title of the article
  • Author of the article
  • Page number(s) that the article spans

In this case, you've provided "Sport Aircraft, January 2009 page 42", so we still need:

  • Volume and issue number (if applicable)
  • Title of the article
  • Author of the article

--Rlandmann (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I see you've found the author's name, have changed the publication date, and corrected the magazine title. Are you sure that it's the Dec 08 issue (ie, Vol 57 No 12) and not the Jan 09 issue (Vol 58 No 1)? We also still need the title of the article itself. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

United States Air Force Museum (1975 edition)

I have removed this reference from a number of articles as it is unclear what it is you are referencing if you add it back in can you please supply more information about what it actual is, I presume as you have used the word edition it is a book or leaflet so I presume it has at least a publisher or other source. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted these changes, but Ken - you urgently need to provide the page numbers. As things stand, they all now say "p.?"
The pages in question are:
Rlandmann (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Standard E-1

I notice you deleted ref to the #used as gunnery trainers. Can you source the delete? Otherwise, I'm putting it back. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Basic referencing – almost there!

Thanks for the work you've put into this department. There's just one little thing still not quite right.

When you put the bibliographic details of the book in the "References" section (the {{cite book}} template), don't include the page number. That information is contained in the footnote.

The logic behind this may not be obvious in these examples, but imagine a longer article where you were referring to many different pages from the one book. The little footnotes tell the reader what page to find the facts on, but the full bibliographic details are only given once, in a separate section.

(There are some examples where we do include page numbers in the full citation – we'll see examples of that when we reference magazine and news articles.) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks too for the Dyke Delta article info: it's allowed me to finish off the reference. Take a look to see how periodical articles are handled. Like I said, it's slightly trickier than a book. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced news

I've just removed several chunks of unsourced news regarding restoration activities from the following articles:

Even if some of this stuff could be reliably sourced, we need to be careful about introducing information that will quickly date. We're writing an encyclopedia here – Wikipedia is quite deliberately not a source of news. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You can find the relevant policy here, part of "What Wikipedia is Not". This policy has stood since late 2002, so it predates your time here.
Please consider the purpose of the articles in question: to describe a particular type of aircraft. While major historic events that involved one or more aircraft of this type are certainly worth noting, reporting that the drop tanks of a particular example were under restoration in 2008 really tells the reader nothing about that particular type.
Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information; it is an encyclopedia. In one important way, the writers and publishers of static, paper encyclopedias had an easier job. They were continually forced by physical constraints to keep their material concise, on-topic, and relevant.
Just because we have the space to theoretically include a blow-by-blow account of the restoration status of every exhibit in the NMUSAF doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do so. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ken_keisel/Archive_1&oldid=1143110980"