As Wikipedia has become a major source of information, I try very hard to thoroughly research subjects before editing. Many Wikipedia articles are well researched and written. Some are shallow and shoddily researched, and some others are utterly unreliable. For these reasons, I feel a duty to expand, remediate, or replace content that is in dire need of improvement.
I try to use print sources because web citations have a very high chance of being deleted or developing an error message within a few years of their being uploaded. I cite books and periodicals from my personal library. When I edit, I exercise caution while citing my sources. I believe a Wikipedia article should satisfy the casual reader's interest and provide a research roadmap for the avid reader. I occasionally perform source verification by comparing my sources with sources of similar content—a practice that often reveals how inaccurate the information on many websites may be. On most occasions, I enter my reasons for an edit in on the talk pages of the affected article.
I am a member of the American Aviation Historical Society, the Aircraft Engine Historical Society, the Air Force Historical Foundation, and I have subscribed to Aviation Week and Space Technology for many decades and have read Space Technology for many more years than those during which I have subscribed to it. I have access to Space Technology's archives. I have collected books on aviation and space since the late 1950s.
I noticed that you started this article, but did not include any sources. Would you be able to address the oversight? - BillCJ23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diverse sources, primarily books on the individual aircraft and persons involved in the design and testing of T40 powered (if that is a proper word to use) engines.
It is clear that the worst proclaimed by the opponents of the Wikipedia is true.
That it is more interested in appeasing the egos of those in charge than pursuing the concept of dispassionate information.
When a female editor is able to suppress the revelation of a complete quote, which refutes her desire that only two words of that same quote were true, because a male editor is too infatuated to reject her perversion of the truth, then the Wikipedia has rejected ANY pretense to being more than what it is, which isn't much.
Thus my withdrawal from editing.
I have not so much of life left that I can waste it.
A tag has been placed on W21 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Brilliantine (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of crap is exactly why Wikipedia is failing to get new editors. There is not a great deal known about the W21, it HAS to be a short article but it FILLS a gap in a nomenclature system with SOMETHING to give context to the history of nuclear weapons system development.
The glee with which you folks try to pound square pegs into round holes is admirable in a manic sort of way. But when one has seen the persistance of a fraction of a quote and the rejection of the fully documented FULL quote which contradicted the malicious editing of the full quote by those using the fraction of a sentence it is clear that there is a substantial flaw in the system by which the Wikipedia is edited.
I was amused by this speedy deletion crap because I was considering doing a bit as requested on the Packard J49. But as few were built, and even if they were America's first fan jet, the amount of material would no doubt disappoint you folks.
I have added some comments to yours, on the United Airlines talk page, in reference to the retirement of various fleets. Also, got a chuckle from your comments on this page, about why Wiki has a hard time keeping editors. Must say that I agree a lot with you on that. EditorASC (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W41 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here we have another triumph of the officious over knowledge. The W41 was built in large numbers (approx. 500) and which was in stockpile for 15 years. Moreover it was the most powerful nuclear weapon ever put in service by the USA. Still it is on track for a hasty deletion because some assholes don't know reality from where their heads are.Mark Lincoln (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, Nuke the W41 article. One must dive long and deep into an era when nuclear weapons technology as well as delivery systems were evolving, mutating, and perishing with astounding speed only to find that folks who were involved worked hard to rid the historic record of the embarrassing fact that they even considered the W41/Navajo combination. The W41 may have solved the CEP problem posed by the G-38 Navajo, but it certainly would have played hell with the range of that never flown cruise missile.Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
Not that anyone at Wikioffal ever checks the citations before allowing some buddy to delete that which is substantiated in favor reposting the fanciful.
Should the ENTIRE text of a report be given concerning an island searched for Amelia Erhart be allowed, or only the fragment which seems to oppose the opinion given by the whole report? Wikioffal has an easy reply. The girlfriend of a senior editor should be allowed to ignore the citation without even reading it and trash the truth with a carefully edited fragment which supports her personal opinion.
As I watched the mutilation of articles by persons who had good intentions and little training, resources and experience I have felt it necessary to remediate their changes. I have decided that when dealing with Wiki articles one must engage in what might be considered "citation overkill." So be it. I have a very large library and need only walk across the room to gather an armful of books to 'document' the crap out of any article I am interested in. The fundamental complaints I have about Wikipedia Editing remain. I see for example that a totally unjustified mutilation of a message that is claimed as important 'evidence' remains while repeated efforts to provide the WHOLE message which proves the malicious intent of the person who defends the mutilated fragment are consistently purged. Too bad that despite the provision of the citation for the whole message as presented in a book by a person who is a proponent of the theory avidly entertained by the 'Editor" who mangled the message to prove a point, she has pull and the truth has none.
i will not bother trying to edit that article. Nor will I waste any time in any instance where fantasy and hobbyists are allowed to discard documented facts and the pertinent opinions of experts.
Hello, Mark Lincoln. You have new messages at Talk:Sputnik program. Message added 06:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
For some silly reason I thought that the Wiki Gods had become concerned about scholarship and meticulous care in providing references for those who might consult the Wikipedia. So that they might have the ability to pursue in accepted works ant thus further enlightenment.
Excuse me for my idealistic delusions.
Clearly the Wikipedia remains a realm dominated by egotists and assholes who have mutually anointed each other with all sorts of stars, brownie points and award for kissing each others and those above them's asses..
One thing is absolutely certain is there is no room in the realm of Wikiassholes for someone who just wants to pass the leads in his library to folks who might be interested in what he was.
Instead we will endure a Wikipedia cited with internet ephemera and edited by assholes who are more interested in pleasing themselves and each other than presenting the best estimation of the truth and references to support it, to the publicMark Lincoln (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mark, first of all thank you for your treatise. As for a response, I do not necessarily have a fetish for dates, other things, yes... There are so many issues that you brought up, that it may take an essay to fully respond. One of the main issues that I tried to work around in the wikywackyworld is that there is a Catch 22 in the Wikipedia premise, and that concerns the ability for an intelligent, well-meaning but ultimately disruptive editor to WP:PUSH a theory or concept. In the case of the LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin, in 2008, one editor out of the hundreds that edited the article, decided to put a personal "stamp" (read philatelic) on the article and wanted to establish that it had a US-centric basis (the MO was already established previously in the Charles Lindbergh and other articles that had used what was at the time, an "international" standard for topics in WP:Aviation that were significant to anyone in the world). Since the dates, imperial measures and unique spellings that comprise the US conventions, are not generally followed by other nations (except Canada, on occasion), it did make sense (again, at the time) to use a style that most people would understand, however, the current standard is now to present US-related topics in a US-style (except the military subjects which retain military style dating that matches the date style of other countries). Now for the crux of the problem, wherever there is a MOS (Manual of Style) dictum, editors follow that format (the comma instead of the period falls into that arena as the measures were taken care of by a declaration that a comma is used to separate blocks of numerals). Once the style is set up, most editors simply follow that style, and whenever there are questions, a consensus is required in order to establish a divergent or exception to the rule. In dating, the MOS date section reads as:
If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic.
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
In the case of the Graf Zeppelin, the strong national ties to the topic is that it is a German airship, and that the conventions of a "German" topic should prevail. HOWEVER, even if a Wiki consensus is called for, the business model of consensus is for all parties to agree or at least, live with the decision made by the group. It isn't a "vote-counting" exercise, although that can be a deciding factor. In this case, there is one (maybe more) obstinate advocate that will never agree with a consensus decision. In that case, the only thing that can happen is that you can only hope that the discussion/arguments/discourse set out the arguments and that even if nothing shakes the foundation of beliefs that dictates a US-centric dating, the resolution than is moved to another forum, that is to ask for "requests for comment" where knowledgeable "experts" take a look at the issues, and recommend, if not adjudicate a decision. More to come on this topic... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
As to your last point, why waste the time here, it can also be a place where "good men and true" (read individuals here) can make a difference. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
As to "as*-kissing", I kinda go with the flow, and pick my fights, especially when the individual in question, has some powerful mops to wield. I tend to use the "water off a duck's back" conceit, and that has not landed me in too much hot water, as yet. As to your contributions to the Zeppelin articles, or any others, I really value the efforts of an experte, that being said, it still can be a swim upstream at times (have I mashed enough metaphors already??). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Mr. Lincoln: You are, of course, free to disagree with me on any interpretation of WP guidelines, historical facts, my approach to research and/or writing style, or anything else including my views on the importance of how the Zeppelin Company generated income to fund its several commercial airships' operations. I would appreciate it, however, if you would please refrain from making gratuitous personal ad hominem attacks such as calling me a "stamp koo-koo" which I am not. (I do not see myself as a "koo-koo" of any kind actually.) I suspect that if you had taken the time and effort to look at my user page you would have seen, I hope, that I am actually quite serious in my approach and appreciation of history and try my best to make useful and worthy contributions to WP in the areas in which I have some levels of particular interest, experience, and/or expertise.
In my professional life, for instance, I have been the author and/or consultant editor of seven published books (three on ice hockey and four on the history of North American railroads), and along with another member of my family (a UCLA PhD) have developed over the past dozen years (since February, 1999) a widely acclaimed now 10,000+ page website called the "Central Pacific Railroad Photographic Museum" on the history of the Pacific Railroad in the 19th century. (You can also find links to some of my other professional and historical websites on my userpage as well.)
As for the philatelic aspects of the history of the Graf Zeppelin, I am already considering creating at least two articles on the postal history (as opposed to "stamps" which is a completely different subject) relating to the rigid airships of the 1920s and 1930s (LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin, LZ 129 Hindenburg, LZ 130 Graf Zeppelin II and the US Navy airships USS Los Angeles (ZR-3), USS Akron (ZRS-4), and USS Macon (ZRS-5)) as well as another one on "Lindberghiana." These will be based in part on (and illustrated with) items from my very large personal collections of flown mails, books, original documents, and other relevant materials and unique artifacts in both of these areas that I have acquired over the years.
I concede that I can be stubborn at times in supporting my views and apparently you can too which is fine with me. But that does not mean that I don't have a serious appreciation of (and respect for) history -- quite the opposite actually. I have been contributing to WP to the best of my ability for the past five years because I want to freely offer and share with those who visit the project what I can about the fields I have come to know a good deal about based on my many decades of experience in writing, researching, collecting, and traveling. I expect that you and the majority of other serious contributors to WP have also been motivated to freely contribute their time and abilities to the project's goals for much the same reason.
I would appreciate, therefore, if you would assume the same level of "good faith" in my efforts as I do in yours and thus refrain from blindly disparaging my and other editors motives, efforts, and abilities based on knowing nothing about me (and them) at all.
Thank you for your consideration of this request which is made respectfully and assuming good faith on your part, and I will follow with great anticipation and interest your additions to the Graf Zeppelin article which I am sure will help me expand my knowledge and understanding of the subject. Centpacrr (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Postal History article would be a very good idea. Easy communications, i.e. postal service, has been a hallmark of successful civilizations for thousands of years. Article One of the US Constitution shows just how important the concept was to our founding fathers. I do not intend to slight your hobby by referring to it as 'stamp collection.' Please note that I repeatedly referred to 'covers.' Aside from the intermittent service by in the 1930s airships actually played little role in the development of either national or international postal services. The sale of such memorabilia and collectables did play an important, if brief, role in financing the early flights of the Graf Zeppelin. This is why I think that there is a need in the article for a section addressing that subject.
I have not questioned the 'good faith' of anyone contributing and deliberately tried to get the other contributors to interact with me rather than just act imperiously. For example though I have no trouble using the date/month/year format I tried to define how far we should take adherence to German usage in the article (for example, 105,000 m3 and 105.000 m3 makes for a significant difference in size unless one knows that the US use of commas translates to the Germany use of periods).
I did not disparage your contribution or those of others. Rather I observed certain weaknesses in the article which may have not been obvious to someone who had not had formal training in history or aeronautical engineering. I use the 'web' for research and realize how hard it can be to come by books on airships. My preference for such stolid sources is more than convenient given my personal collection. We are working on an encyclopedia article. Thus 'source' and 'contemporary' material may be of use for color, and to point the way for readers to pursue the subject if they will. Still works of professional history are the preferred source. An encyclopedia is an aggregation of knowledge, not a work of history.
As for stubborn, I can be quite tenacious. I am also little impressed by authority figures (a major reason I chose business rather than engineering or scholastic history for a career). I also understand collaboration. I did not care for telling employees what to do. I much rather tried to persuade them what had to be done and give them the freedom to do it the best way.
I notice that Wikipedia has no article dedicated to the history of Aviation Postal History. As one who remembers how special 'air mail' still was in the 1950s, and someone who has known old air mail pilots, I am aware of both the social effects of air mail and the role it played in the development of aviation. The telegraph may have been Queen Victoria's internet, but the need for hard copy was beyond it's capabilities. The rail road was a quantum leap over the pony express. The airplane was a quantum leap over the railroad. Mr. Lindberg certainly had an understanding of the air mail. Nothing like stepping out of a plane at night, or carrying a gun to protect the mails.
If you do your article on Lindberghiana I may have some books which will allow documentation, citation, and color. I am not a collector, but for example Keyhoe's "Flying With Lindberg" is good source material for his victory tour of America.
Let us all keep our eye on the ball so to speak. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an aggregation of articles concerning a wide variety of subjects. Each article based upon accepted facts and not original research. Each as concise as possible and including what is necessary. You seem to have two good articles in mind, and certainly can contribute unique information and sources to the Graf Zeppelin article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Cheyenne test crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The BushrangerOne ping only00:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchukwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of sounding rockets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bumper. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Project Nike may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
weekend a month from April to October. The site is on the [[National Register of Historic Places]].{{public, including demonstrations of the operational missile lift from the bunker to the surface.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of sounding rockets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emma. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vickers Viscount may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
:First prototype, with short fuselage (74 ft 6 in (22.71 m), accommodating 32 passengers and powered by four 1,
Canada Airlines]] colours at [[Canada Aviation and Space Museum]], Rockcliffe, Ontario, Canada.{<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.vickersviscount.net/Pages_Listings/Listings_CN_Details.aspx |title=
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vickers Viscount may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Canada Airlines]] colours at [[Canada Aviation and Space Museum]], Rockcliffe, Ontario, Canada.{<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.vickersviscount.net/Pages_Listings/Listings_CN_Details.aspx |title=
s Liberation Army Air Force colours at the [[Beijing Aviation Museum]], People's Republic of China.{<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.vickersviscount.net/Pages_Listings/Listings_CN_Details.aspx |title=
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vickers Viscount may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
web |url=http://www.vickersviscount.net/Pages_Listings/Listings_CN_Details.aspx |title=c/n 263 G-)PAS |publisher=Vickers Viscount Network |accessdate=2015-11-06}}</ref>
item doesn't apply, like capacity, leave it blank. For additional lines, end your alt units with )</li> and start a new, fully formatted line with <li> -->
The request for a citation to document the change in livery and logo when PCA changed it's name is curious.
In the section below it exact figures were given for the prices of "Nighthawk" coach fares. This begged for citation. Having done an extensive search for a source I was only able to come up with the source I cited.
In the case of the change of livery & logo when the name changed from Pennsylvania-Central Airlines, all extant photos show Pennsylvania Central Airlines livery (with the words "The Capital Airlines" painted above the windows) on photos of PCA airplanes. While photos of Capital Airlines airplanes show an entirely different livery. There is no citation needed. The fact is prima facie. All photos of Capital airliners and all excitant brochures, timetables and advertising of Capital Airlines, prove that the livery and logo changed. No citation is necessary.
Ask, always, your questions carefully. But always question everything.
I have not been been able to find any source which explains why Capital Airlines reverted to Clifford Ball's "path of the Eagle" slogan for it's new logo and livery. That is a question which begs a citation. It is also a question which would provide no essential information to the history of PCA/Capital Airlines. Perhaps if we were writing a book it would be worthy of pursuit, but for this article's purpose it is unessential.
I am a champion of citing sources for facts claimed in Wikipedia pages. I do so to a degree which might raise the question of whether I indulge in "over citationing."
I believe that a Wikipedia page should be able to satisfy the interests of a person seeking basic understanding of the subject. I also believe that the article should provide sufficient citations and external links to give the seriously curious person, or researcher, the necessary information to easily pursue further research.
I was a student of aeronautical engineering until the end of the Apollo program and the winding down of the Vietnam War led a glut of unemployed aeronautical engineers. That led me to fall back on my minor which was history. I never worked in either field, instead pursuing business in a rapidly developing field of technology. My major and minor both served me well in those efforts.
The Wikipedia is a curious endeavor. It seeks to achieve encyclopedia style articles upon a very wide number of subjects. The subjects being decided by, and executed by, it's "editors." Those editors might be almost anyone. Thus the rules of what is acceptable are strict, but when carefully read, allow for judgement and evaluation, of sources and assertions. This is necessary to weed out the hobbyists, fanatics, conspiracy theorists and outright tinfoil hat wearing nut cases. The rules should not exclude sources, which upon inspection, are valid sources of historical information.
In aviation history we encounter few of such "enthusiasts" and may evaluate sources on pragmatic grounds. There are still subjects such as TWA 800, AA587 and Amelia Earhart's disappearance, where passionate true believers remain a distinct problem.
We must also asses requests for citation. The need for support may be prima facie, or it may be caused by insufficient background, knowledge or understanding by the editor who believed support was necessary.
Anyone who follows my edits - even on this page - will understand that I even question my own edits. When fact checking shows I was wrong, I have reversed myself.
In writing history we must endeavor to produce the best approximation of the truth that the extant record provides.
Sometimes I have personal knowledge which is contrary to the "extant" record. For example I am in contact with former Capital employees and my father started his career as an airline pilot flying for Capital Airlines (stationed only at ORF, flying DC-3s and Viscounts), after the merger he went on to fly Viscounts, DC-6s, DC-7s, Boeing 727s & 747s (out of EWR, LGA, MIA and ORD) for United. He ending his career as a 727 captain). Thus, in real time, I was/are privy to much undocumented information. I personally have known persons mentioned in airlines histories, accident reports and heard stories about them. Such knowledge cannot be cited as a "source."
For example there are extant records of the great Trow Seabee, who had a life including being a district manager for PCA (see Air Line to Train Veterans, NY Times 23 July 1946), a source I could cite on Wikipedia.
I cannot cite Gary Basel's Capital Airlines Virtual Museumas a source on for Wikipedia for several reasons. Some prior editor did include it as an external link. Look at the picture of Trow at http://baesel.net/cap1.htm. Read the unacceptable sources of commentary at http://baesel.net/caalumni.htm . Evaluate the unusable information revealed. What, even if it is usable as a source, does it reveal about Capital Airlines? Please visit Gary's Virtual Museum to get a feel about what Charles Baptie (PCA/Capital's photographer) called the "Capital Spirit" and ""Capital Family." I have met, knew of, been in the presence of, or heard tales about some persons in the photo on page 39 of Baptie's book. I remember when, in operations at ORF, my little brother blurted out something my father had told my mother about Doug Mason (no. 47). It might have hurt the career of a very junior copilot but Mason let it slide. (Trow Sebree is pilot no. 7 in the advertising photo).
I have tried to provide reliable sources and information in my expansion and documentation of this article. In editing Wikipedia we must always be careful in our use of sources. We also must be careful to question what must be questioned and not to wast effort in questioning the obvious.
I cannot use my flights in Capital Airlines DC-4, Lockheed 049, DC-6Bs or Viscounts, or my personal knowledge from a myrid of relevant experiences and personal contacts because I am not an author published by a third party.
I could cite an anonymous article published in a disreputable magazine. Go figure.
We must always try to do our best within the rules with sound judgement applied.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fokker F.11, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B.III. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Mark Lincoln. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Mark Lincoln. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Mark Lincoln. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MGM-5 Corporal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Private (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In September 2019 you added a lot of information and references to WAC Corporal. Most of the work was fine but the references were left in quite a mess. I have fixed most of them but the Malinda 1972 reference is missing. Do you have this missing reference? Stepho talk22:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to Malina 1972 (not Malinda) was accessible through https://www.olats.org/OLATS/pionniers/memoirs.shtml. It is also in the original document NASA Conference Publication 2014, volume II available at https://ia801200.us.archive.org/3/items/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19770026086/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19770026086.pdf. It appears that somehow the oats.com reference has been affected by Wikipedia somehow as both documents "MEMOIR ON THE GALCIT ROCKET RESEARCH PROJECT , 1936-38" and "ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF ROCKETRY AND ASTRONAUTICS : PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD THROUGH THE SIXTH HISTORY SYMPOSIA OF THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF ASTRONAUTICS" are on that site which I have no trouble accessing but attempting to load either through Wikipedia does not work. The reference is in the Wikipedia page at note 14 and the first mention of Malinta 1972 is at note 15. I hope this may be of help to you. I went on to add a Wikipedia page for the Corporal E as it was a direct research follow on to the WAC Corporal. I have been attempting to upgrade articles upon the early days of rocket research in the U.S. as what was in the Wikipedia was based entirely upon often questionable web pages and otherwise shoddy research. There is a current conflict on over the inclusion of the Corporal E as it was changed from a research project into a weapon development program during the latter stages of the Corporal E program and persons with only a passing knowledge and often shoddy references believe erroniously that it was originated and pursued entirely as a weapon development project. Researching the first years of American rocketry is difficult especially if you wish to find information which mets with Wikipedia "standards" prohibiting "original research." Thus working in what I learned to prefer, source material, is prohibited. Fortunately I have lots of source material and some stuff which may be used as it cites source material. I have material in my archives such as "Bragg, James W. (1961). Development of the Corporal: The Embryo of the Army Missile Program" and other items I have given as "references."
Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the links. I will try to sort it out in the next couple of days as time permits. My own knowledge of the early history is also shaky (at least by the standards of a true historian) but I'll at least fix up formatting, wiki syntax and any obvious errors. Stepho talk00:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing my post I realize that the problem started when I tried to pick up the "footnotes light" method used by a previous author. If one desires to make a proper footnote containing useful information for future researcher the only answer is to use a different if more laborious technique. Wikipedia is created for a broad spectrum of editors and subjects. Malina is a bit difficult to deal with as he was extremely active and influential in a period where the subject of rocketry was little covered and highly classified. Which when coupled with Wikipedia restrictions to prevent ding-a-linngs and hobby horse riders from filling pages with twaddle creates a great deal of problems for anyone wishing to set the record straight on an obscure and technical subject. I am delighted that the use of historians like Bragg are not automatically banned as "original research."
Mark Lincoln (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Recently a complaint was made of an edit I performed concerning the designation of British airships. The dispute was whether the correct designantion should be used or a common mistaken variant. Should for example the correct designation HMA R.101 be used or the common mistake of R101 be allowed? I base my "opinion" upon several "facts." First there is the "reality" that during the early twentith century while many popular sources use the shorter monicer many others, especially official and trade sources, use the correct official designation. Then there is the reality that the shorter designation (by a period) became common usage during the mid-20th century. I could give a number of such examples from Toland's casual "Ships in the Sky" (1960) to Highams very scholarly "The British Rigid Airship 1908-1931" (1960). In recent decades it has become respectable to utilize correct nomeenclature in the fashion of Mowthorpe in his "Battlebags: British Airships of the First World War" (1995) and Jamison's "Icarus over the Humber: The last flight of airship R.38/ZR-2" (1994). In the instance of the Wikipedia I accept that persons looking for the R.38 would probably search for the R38 as this is a common error especially during the mid-20th century. Thus I bow to reality in the instance of the article's name but hew to the true when it comes to the content of the article. As the old sailor told a very young myself one day in the mid-1950s, when I was desperatly in need of relief, that I should do it over the side. We were several miles out in the Chesapeake on snipe #37 when he cautioned me "son never piss to the winnard." So I do not complain over the name of a wikipedia article but do adhere to the truth in a Wikipedia article. I reiterate my belief that Wikipedia should be as reliable a source for historical information as possibile. I repeat a preferrence for published hard copy source over ephemeral web sources though I will use both as neccessary.
Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MilbornOne you appear by your intrusion and threats here to be pursuing a vendetta against myself as well as facts verifiable through accepted source material. I view your intrusion on this essentially private page as proof of an absurd personal vendetta. You apparently will not even allow me to leave without making further threats. How pathetic and vindictive. I have no desire to further waste my time for the benefit of the Wikipedia as it is very clear that privileged opinion rather than facts matter most. Must this go to the Arbitration Committee? You are getting what you wish for, a lowering of standards beneath those which the Wikipedia touts as desirable. Those standards being Wikipedia:Reliability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.“ I suggest you quit your threats while you are ahead. You have won what ever you wanted. Good Bye Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WARNING You must immediately stop making personal attacks on other editors, as you did again today in this post on the R101 talk page and this at the Aircraft WikiProkect. No Personal Attacks is a full policy of the English-language Wikipedia and flouting it again will lead to serious sanctions against you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent contributions to Black Brant (rocket). Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Rocketry? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's rocketry-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
My understanding of Wikipedia was formed both in the stated position of Wikipedia that: “Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents,” as stated in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. That “Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view” as stated in Wikipedia:Five pillars. I appreciate the goal stated in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view “that all encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That as stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).” That this stated goal is to be achieved through “verifiability”; “In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.” Wikipedia:Verifiability. That what the Wikipedia is not is clearly stated in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. These are all goals I believe I have complied with in the article edits I have made.
I also cannot ignore the fact that some other well connected editors in their superior status do not comply with these standards in that “verifiability” may be disregarded in deference to their opinions of what reality should be rather than is. Their ability to use Wikipedia as a “soapbox” for ill-verified or unverifiable opinions of what reality should be dominates. As the view of a few that they may overrule what any editor posts in compliance with a neutral point of view and reliable published sources, based only upon their personal whim of what reality should be, is found by Wikipedia to be superior to verifiable truth. Then I must accept that reality. Thank you Soumya-8974 for your invitation to contribute to Wikiproject Rocketry. As I do not believe that the Wikipedia shall treat my contributions based upon the principles stated in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, nor Wikipedia: Reliable sources, and that some are not required to meet the standards stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability, and may impose their personal wishes in contravention to those principles, I must accept that. While I enjoy writing history I am not an egomaniac nor a masochist. I feel given the reality as opposed to the stated desires of Wikipedia I should decline further participation. Thank you.
Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I've upgraded Spaceflight before 1951 to a point I think it's set for a FLR if you'd like to join in. :) Either way, it is nice to have a comrade in the early space program, and I hope to collaborate with you more often. By the way -- I see that you read Quest. I've got a number of articles published in there from my early career. My STL website with articles. --Neopeius (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hughes JB-3 Tiamat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Thomas Jones.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA
You added a number of citations to "Cagle 1961" to the Mauler article from [here] - you did not add full details of the source however. Could you do the honours?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Memory is fickle and sources may easily be wrong.In my post "Major Improvements Warranted" I state "There was also The Sparrowair I, II, and III which were launched by McDonnell F3H and F-4B aircraft. Some "Internet" sources credit Sparrowair as being launched from F-3Bs which would have been amusing . . ." For a quick refresh I accessed a usually reliable sourcw Astronautix, from which I learned that a Sparoair launch platform was "Launch Platform: F-3B". For which I arrogantly made a snide remark about the F-3B being an aircraft which was long out of service in 1960. Astronautix is the work of the tireless Mark Wade and is usually quite reliable. In the case of Sparoaire it is not. See http://www.astronautix.com/s/sparoair.html for an example of how a source might be in error. To further confuse the issue Sparoaire used a Sparrow motor as its booster while Wade's article on Sparoair lists a number of Cleansweep III launches from a RB-57C. The booster of the Cleansweep shots was cited by Wade as a Shrike, http://www.astronautix.com/c/cleansweepiii.html. Was Wade in error even in including the CleanSweep missions in his articles on the Sparoair? Darned if I know. How might any Wikipedia editor be ccertain? In his seminal book "Strategic Intelligence Production: Basic Principles" General Washington Platt states that the major difference between strategic intelligence production and historical research is that intelligence production requires a prompt product while history requires the best research may produce. Elisabeth Babcock's seminal work "Magnificent Mavericks" about the Naval Ordinance Test Station China Lake is a fine source for the subject. That produced nothing. AS search of the Office of Scientific and Technical Information produced a lead "CLEANSWEEP III B Air Launched Particulate Air Sampling System. Final Report No. TR67-1500-1" from 1967. Alas there was no copy available on line. The web page did provide the lead to "Feasibility Study of Rocket and Launching Systems For Particulate Sampling of Clouds" prepared for the Lawrence Radiation Lab, Livermore California, from 1962. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4757031. That produced an interesting mention of three possible air launched modes being with Sword, Archer or Sparrow rockets. On page 19 of the document it cites the B-57, B-47 and F-4H as possible launch vehicles. On page 24 it states that the missile systems considered were the Sidewinder, Shrike, and Falcon. On page 25 it says that the Shrike " . . . and the fact that this system is still in the development phase, this system was not considered feasible." Further research showed that OSTI has "Deployment Handbook for the Cleansweep IIIB Rocket Sampling System" but alas it is not digitized. I believe that as they say in the oil patch this hole is dry. So does this "prove" anything? I did turn up at the OSTI "Cleansweep IV, Phase II. Final Status Report." That document had some interesting leads which lead to "Cleansweep V Phase Final Status Report" which features a cover showing the missile launch from a parachute stabilized tube as a RB-57D flies off. Aside from that the quick search for information is at an end. Mark Wade has nothing, OSTI and DITC have little. Sic Gloria Transit Mundi. Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Uncivil editor Mark Lincoln. Thank you.--— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
