Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:19, 11 May 2011

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages: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/search/?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_Jrb 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages articles, but I don't know what decision (if any) was reached.

Remember that the cornerstone here is always verifiability - can people using Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages article) can verify the facts contained in it. As the policy puts it, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's policies. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that you were a Misplaced Pages 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:

• Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 (the most serious example)
• Sukhoi Su-17
• Mikoyan MiG-29 (another serious example)
• North American O-47 (another serious example)
• O-52 Owl
• Douglas O-46

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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:

• Wright Model B
• F-82 Twin Mustang
• C-119 Flying Boxcar
• Sikorsky H-5
• Lockheed Constellation
• P-80 Shooting Star
• XB-70 Valkyrie

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 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:

• P-75 Eagle
• North American F-107
• SB2C Helldiver
• Wright Model B
• XB-70 Valkyrie
• Sukhoi Su-17
• Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25

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 – Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Misplaced Pages 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)

Sikorsky R-4

Hi, Ken. Can you please add more information for your reference for the R-4B serial number on display at the National Museum of the USAF? Publisher, editor, OCLC number, etc. There are several (14) versions, some with questionable years, at www.worldcat.org. The earliest says "1976?", so you might be able to match the information for that edition. Anyways, it would help substantiate your edit a little bit more and keep other editors from removing it as questionable. Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tweet

I reverted your changes as the Air Force still flies the Tweet at Sheppard AFB. Citation for the info is on the talk page. — BQZip01 —  01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

They should be flying them until mid-2009. I helped with the documents determining how many students would be flying them and in which class. — BQZip01 —  23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason they are still there is because they are part of the ENJJPT (Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training) program. Make no mistake, it is a U.S. wing with U.S.-owned jets...there just happen to be European students and instructors (and some of the jets are owned by other countries offically too), but it is largely a USAF program. For anything to change in the program approximately 14 nations' Ministers of Defense, or their equivalent, have to agree (with no opposition from NATO). From what I understand, it took a little convincing, or maybe just time, to get everyone on board with the program once the US decided to phase out the Tweet.

BTW, you can just respond here if you'd like. — BQZip01 —  00:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ken, sorry to revert again, but it is a fleet of about 60 (at least) and they belong to the 80th flying training wing under Air Education and Training Command (one of the 9 major commands of the USAF). The T-37 is not yet retired...soon though. — BQZip01 —  07:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Kinda hard to say really. I think the Air Force "owns" them (they maintain them through a U.S. Gov't contract), but the funds for the planes are from 14 countries (or close to 14). I could have been more specific. They have some foreign instructors an students, but the majority are Americans. — BQZip01 —  20:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What other U.S. Squadrons are operating them? I realize there are two (sort of) at Sheppard: The 89th FTS and the 80th OSS (to which all of the students and some of the instructors belong). In any case, it may have been a PR blunder and they thought they were the last. The last squadron at Vance did the same thing a few years back. — BQZip01 —  21:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope it's only one squadron to which they officially belong. I might have overestimated at 60; maybe only 48 now. When I was there (just over a year ago) they were exclusively flying the T-37 (no T-6s...I assume you meant T-6 and not T-46 in your post?). I helped handle the forms for recording the flights and we averaged well over 100 sorties a day with most jets doing a double turn (or in some cases triple turns). The maintenance staff might be big, but it is all contracted out, so I have no idea on the size. As for percentages, I think it's about 60-65% U.S., 20-25% German, ~10% Italian, ~10% Norwegian, with the remainder being "onesey, twosey" from the rest of NATO. The ENJJPT program is considered to be the top U.S. training program and the only international military flying training program in the world; I would imagine quite a few are intentionally trying to go there. :-) — BQZip01 —  04:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

G'day from Oz. Your user page has been vandalised. YSSYguy (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

P-61

Ken, in order to keep the conversation in one place, I've replied on my talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Survivors Section

Maybe you should be reading http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft

And look-up the section on the Survivors section...

This is the approved format by the moderator... Davegnz (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you not take it up with User talk:MilborneOne - he and I came up with this format.

As far as the P-82 survivors section - it was a total mess the aircraft were listed in not particular order (ie F-82E before XP-82 etc) - the writiing was very poor, no references, lots of missing information. You also have to remember wiki's motto:

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly do not submit it - if you do not like my changes - too bad... Davegnz (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

M.41 Tank Destroyer

I have redirected it to the preexisting "Semovente 90/53", feel free to expand that article.--Cerejota (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Cerejota (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

XCOR EZ-Rocket

Do you have a reference for it being there? Scaled don't own that aircraft, and AFAIK I don't think it's kept there. Are you confusing it with this aircraft?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The one and only EZ-Rocket is still at Mojave, still owned by XCOR, although it has been promised to the Mojave Transportation Museum. In fact, it was displayed to the public at the monthly open house this past weekend (ref, if you want it, is my blog, although I fully understand that's not an encylopedia-usable ref). What you are thinking of is the PDE-powered LongEZ that Scaled worked with AFRL on. Different beast altogether. AKRadecki 16:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jingsah II class LCAC

I recently added an infobox the the Jingsah II class LCAC article, which I noticed that you created in October 2008. Being unable to find sources online, I used the information found in the article in good faith to fill in the information in the infobox. When you created the page, you used this source: Saunders, Stephen (RN) Jane's Fighting Ships 2003-2004 ISBN 0 7106 2546 4. If you possess a copy of this book, could you use it and add inline citations to the articles, especially the statistics? Thanks, --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 22:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing a redirect

If you for example click on Yak-3 then the top of the page says "(Redirected from Yak-3)" with "Yak-3" being a link to get to the redirect page. Once there, you can click "edit this page" and replace the redirect code with anything else. Note however that if you want to move another existing page with other contributors than you to the redirect page then you should place {{db-move}} on the redirect and not copy-paste the contents of the other page there. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Replace the code #REDIRECT ] on with the code {{db-move|Yakolev Yak-32|REASON FOR MOVE}} (as the code is rendered here and not as it looks when you edit this section). This alerts an administrator that you want Yakolev Yak-32 to be moved to the title Yakovlev Yak-32. Replace "REASON FOR MOVE" with for example "correct spelling". The reason an administrator is needed is that only administrators can move a page to a title which already exists as a redirect or article. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am actually an administrator and have performed the moves. Otherwise another administrator would probably have done it within a few hours. You did it as I said, but on second thought I should have told you to add {{db-move|Yakolev Yak-32|REASON FOR MOVE}} on top of the existing code instead of replacing it. It doesn't matter now. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful edit summaries

Please be careful with edit summaries such as "removed erronious tag by ViperNerd - attempt to vandalize article due to racial bias against russian involvment". We do not know what is in the mind of others, and accusations of "thought crimes" are never really helpful. Perhaps he is simply an anti-communist, which has nothing to do with race! Anyway, assume good faith unless you have evidence to the contrary based on his other actions or statements that he is indeed a vandal. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

F-35 Lightning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on F-35 Lightning II. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bzuk (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Please note the appropriate place to continue this discussion on article development is the aforementioned article's talk page. All interested parties should continue the dialogue on the appropriate forum: Talk page section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

K, a suggestion has been made in discussions on the Talk page section that seems to have merit. The involvement of the Yakalov company might be better suited to the Lockheed Martin X-35 article where early development was identified. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

I agree. Unfortunately ViperNerd has been deleting all reference to the Yakovlev involvement from the F-35 article as well. He has also followed every edit I have made since editing the F-22 page several days ago and vandalized dozens of unrelated articles with hundreds of erronious tags. He is essentially "spamming" me on Misplaced Pages. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ken, this is on Page 700 Jane's All The World's Aircraft 200-2001:

Lockheed-Martin produced 91 percent scale powered model of JAST demonstrator for wind-tunnel tests and in June 1994 revealed agreement with Yakovlev of Russia to purchase date on cancelled Yak-141 programme which employed similar propulsion system.

Entry under Lockheed Martin (220) X-35 and (230) Joint Strike Fighter; here you have a published secondary source which is usually preferred over a website on Misplaced Pages. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring in Stealth aircraft

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stealth aircraft. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ViperNerd (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Stealth aircraft. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis 05:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources

Ken, can you take a look at WP:CITE so that your additions to aviation articles can be accompanied by references? I have noticed some recent shoot-from-the-hip writing of yours—writing completely devoid of cites and sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on references for the Mosquito article right now. The former intro was completely off-base, citing that the Mosquito was originally designed as a light bomber. In fact, it was designed as a fast recon aircraft, and was later adapted to a variety of other roles. In addition, the Germans used the Mosquito as a goal for their new generation of fighters, such as the He-219 (getting references on this as well). Regarding the B-52 and Bv-222, if you know of larger aircraft please let me know. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And while you're at it - take a look at WP:POINT - edits like aren't helpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just what IS the point that you're trying to make? The edit you're refering to should have already been made based on the position you're taking. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies 19:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

Pittsburgh event for Misplaced Pages's tenth anniversary

Hi! Since you have a connection to Pittsburgh, I wanted to invite you to the Misplaced Pages Tenth Anniversary celebrations we're having in Pittsburgh on Saturday, January 15. During the daytime, we're going to be having a photo contribution drive where anyone can bring in their digital photos or prints and Wikipedians will teach people how to upload them and add them to articles, and maybe introduction to Misplaced Pages workshops as well. Then in the evening, we'll have fun at the Carson City Saloon. There will be free Misplaced Pages t-shirts and other goodies, as well. See the Pittsburgh meetup page for more details. I hope to see you there!--ragesoss (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Ken keisel! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Misplaced Pages, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Saving Private Ryan. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is my understanding that it is not necessairy to cite a reference when the performer is in the film's credits. Ray Hanna is listed as the P-51 pilot, and thanks are given for the participation of the two firms that supplied the P-51's for the film. To do it your way you would have to cite a reference every time you listed Tom Hanks as appearing in the film. Ken keisel (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

SPR Edit War

Before reverting my edits wholesale, please take a look at the entry I just added to the talk page. I don't object to the inclusion of the info on the aircraft, I've just moved them to a different section. The pilot was NOT a member of The Cast and should not be included as such. I have left his name in the section discussion the aircraft.Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, terribly sorry. At first glance it appeared that it had been removed again. I'm perfactly fine with having Mr. Hanna and son with the aircraft information. I'm most concerned that the link to his article be maintained. I'm currently going through my P-51 reference material to find information backing up my earlier contribution about the inaccuracy of their depiction as "tank busters". That caused a bit of a row in the WWII aircraft community when the film first came out. Ken keisel (talk)

Papa class subs

Given that the move to K222 was the result of a debate, I thought it would be prudent to have another one before moving back. Please take a look: Talk:Soviet submarine K-222. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not around when the title was changed in 2009, but I agree with having a discussion about it. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Misplaced Pages"

one or two editors using this account?

Your user page suggests to me that you are two, rather than one, editor using this account. Is that right, or do you mean to indicate that you are just one of the two people listed? Sorry if this has been asked before - I don't see anything about this. -- Scray (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand? There is only myself listed as an editor on this account. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I must be missing something obvious, but your user page describes Kenneth G. Keisel and Kenneth M. Keisel with about equal weight (I'm avoiding assumptions about age or anything else there). Which one edits under this account? Unless I'm missing some explicit statement to this effect, you might want to make it clear. -- Scray (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Panthers

Hey Ken, thanks for the info. I started Pitt in 1991 and can tell you, definitively, that is hasn't happened since then. I had actually never heard of it before, but the painting makes an interesting blurb both on the Panther Hollow article and for the Panthers of Pittsburgh article. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. As I recall, it was the Pitt-Penn State Game in 1983 when Dan Marino played Todd Blackledge (and lost) that it last occured. The Panthers got painted pink that night. It's too bad that tradition has ended. It was easy to clean up. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, probably one of the reasons it ended is that Pitt now has two big panther statues right on campus (one at the Pete and one in front of the Union, as well as another at Heinz Field). They're not nearly as isolated of targets to try to vandalize. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Where's the "Pete"? Remember, I went to CMU. Also, what happened to the King's Court Theater? We used to perform "Rocky Horror" there many years ago. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Please do not create articles without references. They are likely to be deleted. For example, Djinn Chair. Please use references to reliable sources to show where the information comes from. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a bunch of references for this article. I just ran out of time. I will be adding them this weekend. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

Re: Name Change

Not a problem. :) The reason it didn't show up on requested moves is that the template was not transcluded. You have an archived discussion and no move template. In any case, an uninvolved administrator is the one who closed the request as no consensus in the first place. You would have to put another {{movereq}} template on the talk and have another discussion before an administrator would reconsider. Regards, MacMed_stalk 23:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Project Nike. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. BilCat (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

BilCat, I'm a bit surprised at this comment. You've been doing this long enought to know that the existance of a surviving example acn be listed without a published reference. If one sees a F-4 on display at a museum they need not wait until someone publishes a book about it before listing it among the survivors, otherwise most of the surviving examples currently listed on wikipedia would still be waiting for references. While it is always nice when someone is able to provide a bit of referenced history on the surviving example, the fact that the aircraft, tank, ship currently exists does not depend upon a reference. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

An aircraft etc may exist, but without a WP:RS then adding them is Original Research.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to view it that way than virtually every aircraft, tank, ship listed on Misplaced Pages is Original Research, including, I note, the missiles that were already listed (but not contested) on the page BilCat has been defending. Perhaps BilCat would care to explain why he has no problem with all the other aircraft that are listed without references? - Ken keisel (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken, for a user who has been editing WP for as long as you have, you should not have to be told about proper sourcing. That this is a continual problem with you is not encouraging. You are completely wrong that survivor list can be added to on sight alone, and this has been discussed at WT:AIR in the past. That you don't seem to understand what I did to your edits is even less encouraging. I did not delete all of them, only the ones that related to the Nike Hercules, which has its own page. I did add an unreferenced section tag to the setion, which covers all the remaining items, including the ones before you added in your lastest text dump. The fact that survivor sections in other articles without sources is no excuse to continue to add unreferenced material, which you should also know by now. I try to keep up with them, but the fact that I haven't is no excuse to add more unreferenced material either. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

BilCat, just what are you referring to in your comment "I did not delete all of them, only the ones that related to the Nike Hercules"? When did I accuse you of this? It seems to me at this point that you are trying to fabricate a conflict by accusing me of making statements that I never made. I would appreciate the courtsey of a reply. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That appeared to be the issue you had. My aplogies is I misunderstood youbut your style is a bit confusing to understand at times. - BilCat (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to be sympathetic with you as you do tend to construct conflicts where none exists. Note that your apology even ends with the criticism, "your style is a bit confusing to understand at times". I'd like to be more concerned here, but you do tend to create much about nothing. Thus far, apart from you there have been little in the way of complaints about the "survivors" sections, though I have received feedback that they are providing a valuable resource for people attempting to locate "what" still exists "where". I presently have over fifty excellent reference books on military vehicles, and apart from two books on the P-61 by the same author, none have sections on surviving aircraft. I would like to provide the kind of references you're looking for, but are you actually aware of any such books, or are you just speculating that they exist? If you actually know of such publications, please send me the information on them and I will eagerly purchase copies. Until then we must all make do with what is currently available. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not some people appriciate a list of every pgate guard is not the isse, but that of WP policy and guideliens, and the site's purpose as an encyclopedia. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP's purpose. It is not an indiscriminate collection of lists, per WP:NOT, which is policy. This issue of Aircraft on display has been dealt with by WPAIR on several occasions, and I'll bring it up there again now so you can get an idea of what this issue is about, and realize that you are far out on the limb on this issue. - BilCat (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I don't see why you're interpreting "source" as a listing in a published book for this case. If the issue is whether some object is on public display at a museum, I would think it should be enough to include a web citation of the page on the museum's web site which lists or shows the exhibited object. Indeed, I think this would be the best possible citation for this type of statement, since a printed book may not reflect the current status of the exhibit. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur that claiming that a particular aircraft is on display in a particular museum does indeed require a reliable source to back up the claim. But Colin's right here: in most instances, a reference to the Museum's website is going to be the best reference possible. Please let me know if you need help formatting this kind of reference; it's pretty straightforward once you get the hang of it, and I'm happy to help out. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Colin Douglas Howell and Rlandmann, I agree completely with this. In the past the individuals above have opposed doing this as they believe links to museum web sites constituted "original research". You will note that BilCat has even gone so far as to threaten to block me, though it appears he may not be a site administrator after all. If we can reach a consensus that museum links do not constitute "original research" than I think we will have gone a long way to resolving this problem. I would point out that much of my work on the Nike Hercules article did not add new information, but only reformatted the information that was already there. Much of the information that was added came from a well maintained web site on Nike Bases at http://ed-thelen.org/museums.html#Aberdeen - Ken keisel (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have threatened to block you?? RL, will you please explain how warnings work? Good grief! Btw, that site doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. - BilCat (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You certainly did. Look above to your message of April 10. After that I checked with Misplaced Pages to see if you were an administrator. You are not, and your threat was reported. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's a standard warning. We are required to give some sort of warning before seeking administrative action against other users. - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Bilcat that Ed Thelen's site doesn't satisfy the reliable source guidelines. While it certainly is a useful repository of information, both on Nike missiles and, incidentally, on computer history, whatever you find there about museums holding Nikes needs to be verified elsewhere, preferably by the museums themselves. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

@Colin Douglas Howell - Working on this right now. I checked about a dozen of the more obscure locations before using it as a reference, and everything I checked was good. In fact, there were more missiles at some locations than Thelen's site listed. I will try to add some links to the listings asap. I can vouch for the missile at site D-53/54. Just touched it the other day. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

On face value, this policy looks a little surprising, especially since we've all seen mistakes (even big, obvious mistakes!) in professionally edited websites and books; while there are some self-published books and websites that are probably the very best resources in existence on their various topics. So why is Misplaced Pages so finicky about sources? Well, the aim here is to produce a fully fact-checked encyclopedia. Unfortunately, that level of fact checking is a professional skill out of the reach of most contributors, and editors for the whole site would be prohibitively expensive for the Wikimedia Foundation to employ (not to mention against the spirit of the project). So essentially, we outsource the fact checking, by insisting that all material here comes from a source that someone else has already paid to fact check, or where we can at least presume this to be the case.

Does this always work? Of course not. Misplaced Pages no doubt republishes all kinds of mistakes that slipped past the editors of the sources that end up in articles. Conversely, the policy disallows us from using all kinds of useful and well-researched sources: Ed Thelen's and Joe Baugher's, for example. However, we trust that the policy works a lot more often than it does not. Hope this clears things up a little. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Misplaced Pages. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Misplaced Pages contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell FH Phantom -- citations needed

Hi Ken -- you've introduced a number of specific claims to this article, each of which needs to be cited to a professionally fact-checked source:

• FH production shifted to the F2H
• FHs were allocated BuNo 111749 through 111848 removed by another editor as unnecessary detail
• The BuNo of the FH at the NASM
• The BuNo and dismantled status of the FH at Ft. Lauderdale
• The existence and post-retirement career of the FH at the Wings of Eagles Discovery Center
• The existence of a FH at the National Museum of Naval Aviation

If you need help formatting references for this information, please let me know here, and I'll work with you on incorporating it. I haven't added {{citation needed}} tags to the article itself, because I believe it's more productive to work directly with other contributors than to clutter up public-facing articles with those. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The easiest way to get this information is to use Richard Blaugher's "Guide to Over 900 Aircraft Museums" which comes out almost annually. If you purchase each volume you can use them to track the movement of aircraft on display. I have connections with the AAHS, so I get my information directly from them. It's available from the AAHS archives. I don't know how you would want that referenced. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In theory, It would have to be referenced to Blaugher's book. For example, "Blaugher 2010, p.123", and then in the bibliography section, something like "Blaugher, Michael. (2010) Guide to Over 900 Aircraft Museums USA & Canada. 26th ed. PUBLISHER: CITY". However, Blaugher's book is apparently self-published, and therefore can't be used as a reference on Misplaced Pages.

Blaugher has had a publisher for the last several volumes, he just doesn't use ISBN #'s. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Who is the publisher? According to Blaugher's own website, he publishes the book himself. Also, he does indeed use ISBNs; the ISBN for the current, 26th edition is ISBN 0974977241 (not that having an ISBN is in any way relevant. No citation system that I'm aware of uses this number.) --Rlandmann (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise "somebody at the AAHS told me" is not an acceptable source either (I think you're saying you contacted them and they gave you this information, but I'm not sure that I'm understanding you correctly).

Do you have another source for the claims you've made in the article? --Rlandmann (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one of the fellows at AAHS published an article on the FH-1 with survivor information. I have to dig through back issues to find it. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Uncited material reverted

You're continuing to add unreferenced material to this article, even while you have so much other cleaning up to do :( I've therefore removed your recent edits to the FH Phantom page. This is useful material, though, so please restore it if you can cite it to a professionally published source. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC) restored with references -- many thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Still missing however, are the page numbers for these pieces of information, and for the article as a whole. Can you please supply them? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And now you're adding citations to Wagner without any page numbers either... --Rlandmann (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Fixed thanks. The references to Hamilton in the AAHS Journal are still missing their pages though -- take a look in the "Notes" section! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Had this, but regrettably a virus has struck my computer and wiped out all the emails from Hayden. I will attempt to get them again as soon as possible. - 216.206.49.251 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that :( When you make contact with him again, remember that we need:

• the page numbers for the full spread of pages that the article occupied in the journal (eg: pages 12-16)
• the specific page number(s) on which the histories of these four airframes appeared.

Thanks for following this up! --Rlandmann (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin AM Mauler -- citations needed

In this article, it's these two specific claims (in the one sentence) that need a citation:

• "With an empty weight in excess of 15,000 lbs., the Mauler is perhaps best remembered as the heaviest single-engine piston powered aircraft ever produced."

Who says that it was the heaviest single-engined powered aircraft ever produced? Who says that the Mauler is best remembered for this? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up. I've noticed that much of the information in stat boxes is way off from the numbers in my references. I still rely heavily on Ray Wagner's "American Combat Planes" as it used manufacturer's data for sources, instead of perpetuating the same mistakes from earlier books. I have yet to see a stat box that is referenced. Isn't there a way to do that for the information it contains. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "stat box". Do you mean the infoboxes at the top right of the article? Or the specification tables with the dimensions and performance specifications towards the end of the article. And yes, facts provided there need to be referenced like anything else.

I'm refering to the specification tables. I haven't found one yet that has any references, and much of the information doesn't agree with the best reference sources. How can they be made to show references? - Ken keisel (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

All specification tables should indicate the source of their data. Usually this is introduced by the words "Data from" at the very start of the table. In the template code itself, it's the line |ref= that creates this. Use the same format as you would use for other in-text citations; for example, |ref=Gray & Thetford 1962, p.571, which on the page itself renders as: "Data from Gray & Thetford 1962, p.571"

Almost every aircraft article you've edited recently has included this information, so I'm not sure how you can say you haven't found one that does:

• Naval Aircraft Factory TS: "Data from Gordon Swanborough, Peter M. Bowers: United States Navy aircraft since 1911. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis 1990 (ISBN 0-87021-792-5), p. 370."
• Martin AM Mauler: "Data from United States Navy Aircraft since 1911" (linked to a footnote with extra bibliographic details)
• Martin T4M: "Data from United States Navy Aircraft since 1911" (linked to a footnote with extra bibliographic details)
• McDonnell FH Phantom: "Data from McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920" (linked to a footnote with extra bibliographic details)

In each of these cases, the formatting is poor, but the full bibliographic citation is present. Wherever possible, we try to use information from a single data source, to ensure that the data all describes the same production model and to minimise errors that emerge when combining data from different sources. In some cases, when the main source is incomplete, we might have to supply a statistic from a source other than the main one. We do this in precisely the same way as information included in text; and in the "ref" line in the table template we put something like: |ref=Gray & Thetford 1962, p.571, except as noted. You can see practical examples at

• McDonnell F2H Banshee: "Data from McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 except as noted" (linked to a footnote with extra bibliographic details)
• Solar MS-1: "Data from Munson 1982, p.212, except as noted."

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Wagner claim that the Mauler was the heaviest single-engine piston powered aircraft ever produced? And does he claim that the Mauler is best remembered for this? If so, you can use him as a source for those claims.

Misplaced Pages is now ten years old; and many older articles are not as fully referenced as they should be. However, finding poorly-referenced (or unreferenced) claims in an article is no excuse to make the situation worse by adding more! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wagner does't specifically claim that it is the heaviest single engine piston plane, but if you use the entire text of both Wagner and Robert Jackson's excellent "Encyclopedia of Aircraft" you will find that nothing else has ever come close. That makes sense though, as it is the only single engine aircraft to use the R-4360 powerplant, the heaviest piston engine ever produced. The old joke was that a Douglas AD-1 could lift more than a Douglas C-47, and the Mauler could lift the Skyraider lifting more than a C-47. I suppose I could use the entire text as a reference. I will need to add this to the body of the article somewhere, as the opening introduction is generally not referenced. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have a specific source for either of these claims (heaviest single-engined, piston-powered plane; best remembered for this fact) then we can't include them here. The fact that nothing that Jackson includes is heavier is insufficient -- this is what Misplaced Pages calls original research on your part.

Claims made in the introductions of articles are subject to the same sourcing requirements as any other claims. In short; there's no opportunity to introduce unsourced material anywhere in an article. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

More problems...

You haven't provided page numbers for any of the numerous claims that you've sourced to Wagner. Please fix... The formatting was also wrong, but I've corrected this for you, so it should now be easy for you to slip the page numbers in wherever there's a reference to his book.

Secondly, the specifications template doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. Specifically:

• you cannot have more than one "|ref" line. This is quite deliberate -- we should not mix-and-match specifications drawn from disparate sources. If you think there's a compelling reason to replace the figures from Swanborough & Bowers' book with the figures from Wagner's older book, you should probably discuss that on the talk page and then replace all the specifications.
• you cannot add arbitrary lines to the template code: the software just ignores them.

I've reverted your changes to the specs to fix the above problems. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I have written an explanation on the talk page listing the reasons for switching to Wagner's specs. It's a bit wordy, I'm afraid, but I wanted to be very clear why Wagner is the better choice. I have no grudges against Swanborough's book, quite the opposite, I think the photos are particluarly good, but he uses his sources rather indiscriminately. Wagner was the only one to ever completely standardize his sources so that all aircraft can be compared in a meaningful and accurate manner. He started working on the book in 1957, working with the late Lee Pearson, the U.S. Navy's historian throughout most of the late 20th century, and the two of them did a remarkable job of creating a text that is both easily readable, and extremely accurate. Most aviation writers I know pick up Wagner before they look in anything else. If you don't have a copy yourself I suggest you check on ABEBooks.com and get one. Used copies are surprisingly cheap. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this; looks like we have some useful discussion going on. Thanks too for the recommendation on Wagner's book -- I've added it to my (long!) list that I want to add to my collection! :)

So, summing up the remaining problems:

• You missed three page numbers (after "did not enter service until March 1948") -- an easy way to spot these is to look down the bottom of the article at the "Notes" section -- Footnotes 1, 9, and 11 1, 10, and 12 should stand out...
• You've introduced still more facts without references! Specifically:
  • "Maulers remained in reserve squadrons until 1953." -- now cited to Wagner; thanks --Rlandmann (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Delivery of Maulers began in July 1947" <-- this claim is mixed in with claims from another source
  • "Maulers quickly gained a reputation as remarkable load lifters"

Are these three claims all from Wagner? Wherever they're from, please add a citation including a page number. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All of those claims are attributed to Wagner and already cited at the end of the sentence. It was explained to me by a site administrator that if the content of a sentence is attributed to the same source then it need be referenced only at the end of the sentence. The administrator stated that multiple citations to the same source throughout a sentence was unnecessary and unsightly. I do agree. He also indicated that if all the information contained within a single paragraph can be attributed to the same source then only one citation was required, at the end of the paragraph. The emphasis here was on minimizing the number of citation tags when only a single source is cited. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That position is not supported by policy, although it makes sense when a sentence contains only a single idea attributed to a single source.

In this particular example, the sentence "Delivery of Maulers began in July 1947, but problems with the tail hooks damaging the rear fuselage delayed service entry another year, and Mauler did not enter Navy service until March 1948, when Maulers began operating with VA-17A in the Atlantic Fleet." is now attributed, in its entirety, to two different sources — "Wagner 1982, p. 368", and "Swanborough and Bowers 1990, p. 358". This is clearly not true; so facts that you've added purely from Wagner (ie, deliveries began in July 1947) need to be differentiated from the rest of the sentence. The sources apparently agree on the balance of the sentence.

The claim that Maulers gained "a reputation" for their load-lifting abilities is a separate claim from the one that a Mauler once carried a useful load of 14,179 lbs aloft. Ordinarily, I'd be inclined to to simply cite the whole sentence to Wagner, but this reads very much like a statement of opinion, so we have to be extra careful with citing it properly.

I cannot imagine a situation in which it would be appropriate to cite an entire paragraph to the one source, unless it was a direct quotation and indicated as such.

I've updated the missing page number tally and unsourced claims list above. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin T4M -- clarification and formatting needed

In this article, you added the following paragraph:

• The T4M was unusual in that its slab-sided fuselage was large enough to allow flight crews to get up and move around between positions. It was so spacious a man could nearly stand up within it. Of its flying qualities, one pilot was quoted as saying "It takes off, cruises, and lands at 65 knots".<ref>Melton USNR, Lt. Comdr. Dick. ''the Forty Year Hitch''. Wyandotte, Michigan: Publishers Consulting Services, 1970</ref>

You quote Melton on the flying qualities of the plane, but it's unclear whether you're also citing him to back up the first claim? If so, it needs a separate citation to show that.

Second, the format of that reference is fine for what goes in the bibliography at the end of the article (as you correctly provided), but the citation in the text itself should be much shorter: <ref>Melton 1970, p.</ref>. Importantly, you must provide the page number here.

If you use the same citation (as in, absolutely identical, including the page number) more than once in the same article, it's a little more complex:

• the first citation looks like: <ref name="melton">Melton 1970, p.123</ref> (you can use whatever is memorable to you as the "name" part)
• the second and any subsequent citations look like: <ref name="melton"/>

Therefore, if all the information in that paragraph came from the same page in Melton, it should look like:

The T4M was unusual in that its slab-sided fuselage was large enough to allow flight crews to get up and move around between positions.<ref name="melton">Melton 1970, p.123</ref> It was so spacious a man could nearly stand up within it. Of its flying qualities, one pilot was quoted as saying "It takes off, cruises, and lands at 65 knots".<ref name="melton"/>

If the two pieces of information came from different pages in Melton, it should look like:

The T4M was unusual in that its slab-sided fuselage was large enough to allow flight crews to get up and move around between positions.<ref>Melton 1970, p.123-24</ref> It was so spacious a man could nearly stand up within it. Of its flying qualities, one pilot was quoted as saying "It takes off, cruises, and lands at 65 knots".<ref>Melton 1970, p.124</ref>

Hope this helps --Rlandmann (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Naval Aircraft Factory TS -- improve citations

This is much, much closer to what's required! Thank you! However, now you're learning to provide these citations, it's probably worth getting them right! :)

• As with the T4M article, the in-line reference to Melton should look like: <ref>Melton 1970, p.</ref> and include the page number. The bibliographic entry is fine.
• aeroweb.org does not appear to be a professionally fact-checked source. You need to find a different source to back up the claim that TS-1 SN: A6446 is at Pensacola.

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Naval Air Station Grosse Ile -- citations (or at least, clarification) needed

This article is a huge improvement over what we had here previously! Many thanks! :) To "wax the car" now:

• Many of the new paragraphs contain multiple claims, with a citation to Melton at the end of the paragraph. It's not clear whether all the facts in the paragraph come from Melton, and there are no page numbers included in any case. You can use the format I showed you in connection with the T4M article to cite any claims that come from Melton to the appropriate part of his book.
• some long slabs of text have no references at all:
  • the paragraph that starts "In 1956 the Army came to NASGI. A Nike site designated D-51..."
  • the second half of the last paragraph: the section that begins with "There are still some signs of the old NAS there. The former Hangar 1 is now the Township Hall and offices..."
  • the list of aircraft operated from this NAS

Please clear these up, and, as always, ask for help if there's any way in which I can assist! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

@Rlandmann Thanks for the help. I'm using Melton's book as an interum source until my own book on the base comes out in the fall. I will add page numbers as time permits. All the early aircraft references are from P.38, and you are welcome to add the page number if you have time. Otherwise I will work on it early next week. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Great; thanks for this! :) If it's OK, I'll hold off helping out with adding page numbers until I've seen you do a few by yourself, just so I know you've got the hang of it. Note too that there's a lot of other uncited information in the articles I've linked above that needs urgent help and probably doesn't come from Melton's book. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar -- citation required in one place, better formatting required in another

Still making my way through these. This time, it's this claim that needs a citation:

• The only American casuality of the siege at Dien Bien Phu was James B. McGovern, Jr. who was killed when his C-119 was shot down while delivering a Howitzer to the beseiged base.

Says who?

Also, thanks for the citation for the C-119 a the MAAM, but there are a couple of problems here:

• You claim that "This former Marine R4Q is reported to be the last C-119/R4Q operated by the U.S. military" and cite this information to the museum website. However, the site says no such thing! Can you please clarify where that information really came from?

If you click on the page for this particular aircraft it does say that they believe this was the last R4Q/C-119 in military service. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any such link on the page that you cited: http://www.maam.org/aircraft.htm -- can you please supply the link to the page where you read this information? --Rlandmann (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• The citation is badly formatted. To cite a website:
  • the <ref> in the article text itself should look like (in this example): <ref>"Aircraft of the Mid Atlantic Air Museum"</ref> (that is, the title of the page that you're referencing, in quotation marks)
  • a simple form of the full citation in the bibliography should look like: <ref>, retrieved April 14, 2011

--Rlandmann (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

ZMC-2 -- page numbers missing

Again, this article contains a number of specific claims that need citations. I'm flagging each piece of information with a question here, so hopefully it might make it more obvious where things are missing:

• The airship was constructed in a special blimp hanger built in 1925 for the construction of the ZMC-2. -- says who? cited to Morrow and Fritsche, but page number missing
• This hanger measured 140' high, 140' wide and 160' long, -- says who? -- cited to Melton, but page number missing
• and remained the largest structure on the Naval Air Station property -- who says it was the biggest? --cited to Melton, but page number missing
• until 1960, when it was dismantled and the -- who says it was dismantled in 1960? -- cited to Melton, but page number missing
• roof reused in the construction of a bowling alley in nearby Trenton, Michigan. -- who says where the roof was reused? -- cited to Melton, but page number missing
• were applied by an innovative sewing machine-like device which produced airtight seams. -- who says the rivets were applied this way? Who says the machine was innovative? cited to Morrow and Fritsche, but page number missing
• The device was developed by the Aviation Tool Co., a division of the Detroit Aircraft Corporation. -- says who? cited to Morrow and Fritsche, but page number missing

--Rlandmann (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a much better job on referencing this article and the new material that you've included. It's certainly much better now. A couple of outstanding problems:

• The references you provided were formatted very poorly. I have corrected them.
• You have not provided a single page number for any of the 30-odd references you've made to Morrow and Fritsche's book -- please fix this urgently.
• You did not provide any citations for the claims you made about the hangar. I have therefore removed this material -- please reinstate it if you can provide citations for your claims. -- cited to Melton, but page number missing

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Morrow & Fitsche publication date

Hi Ken -- could you please verify the publication date as 1967? I don't have a copy of this book myself, but every library catalog and bookseller site I've consulted gives the publication date as 1987, including the Smithsonian. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. My copy is definately 1967. As far as I know there has never been a reprint. Re-fixing it was a tad tedious. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that; if you'd just mentioned it, I would have been more than happy to put it right; it only takes seconds with the right tools! Now, could you please add the missing page numbers? As you can see from the Grosse Ile article, having these "naked" references lying around is inviting complications when well-meaning editors come along to clean up the mess! --Rlandmann (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I do a lot of these little edits from work when I don't have the books nearby. The only time I work on Misplaced Pages from home is on Sundays. I try to bring all the references up to speed then, when I have the books handy. Should be able to work on page #'s this weekend. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This unfortunately supports a hunch I've had for a while -- that you're editing without the sources in front of you, relying on memory and hoping that there was something in the book that backs you up. Please stop.

See also my comment below.

If you want to draft articles without including references, you can easily do that in your userspace and move them into the main article space on Sunday when you've had a chance to reference them and get them ready for public consumption. You can find out how to create subpages for yourself here, and as usual, I'm only too happy to help with the technicalities if needed. Basically, though:

1. click "edit" on the article that you want to work on
2. select and copy the text of the article (Ctrl-A then Ctrl-C on most computers)
3. create a user subpage for yourself
4. paste the contents of the article into the subpage (Ctrl-V on most computers)
5. edit away. When you've done, check the article in the mainspace of the encyclopedia to make sure that noone else has been editing it in the meantime; if not, go ahead and reverse the process above to paste your completed fully referenced work into the article. If someone else has been editing, you will need to take a little care to incorporate their changes as well. If this situation arises, just ask for help.

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Grumman AF Guardian -- citation clarifications needed

Thanks for citing your additions to the Guardian page to Wagner, but there are a few problems here:

• You didn't get the formatting quite right -- I fixed this for you, so you can use it as a pattern in future
• You didn't supply a page number --fixed --Rlandmann (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• You introduced a number of claims, and it's not clear what claims you're attributing to Wagner:
  • "The Guardian remained in service until August 1955" <-- did Wagner say this? cited elsewhere in the article to Goebel
  • the Guardian was "the largest single-engine aircraft ever to operate from a U.S. carrier." <-- it looks like this claim is cited to Wagner -- now unambiguously attributed to Wagner
  • "The Guardian is perhaps best remembered" <-- did Wagner claim that this is what the plane is "perhaps best remembered" for? claim removed by another editor as editorialising. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Finally, there are a lot of problems with other recent contributions of yours which remain unaddressed. It might be worthwhile fixing these before adding new material to other articles. If you don't intend fixing the existing problems, please let me know. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the page #. Reguarding you questions, yes, Wagner does supply all the information listed. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! So now:

• add a citation to Wagner (including page number) for the claim "The Guardian remained in service until August 1955" cited elsewhere in the article to Goebel; a shame, because Goebel really isn't up to the standard of references we rely on.
• add a citation for the source of your claim "(though not the heaviest)" -- maybe to the page in Wagner's book where he describes the Mauler's demonstration flight? -- still not cited; I've just removed the claim. Please re-add it if you can provide a reference.

--Rlandmann (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work citing the information on the surviving Guardians. However,

• The formatting was very poor; I have corrected this. You can see the difference here. (Ignore the change to the Wagner reference; I'll explain that another time, after you have grasped the basics first).
• as usual, you have not provided a single page number for your claims -- please fix this urgently
• you still hadn't provided a citation for your "not the heaviest" claim, so I've removed it for now. Please re-add it if you can provide a reference. (now fixed -- thanks) --Rlandmann (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell F2H Banshee -- fix citation please

As with your other recent contributions, the citation to Wagner is missing a page number; please supply this. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Fixed! Many thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Specifications for US Military Aircraft

I have started a discussion on your proposal to standardise on a single source for specification of US Military aircraft here.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

Citation formatting -- the basics

Hi Ken; unfortunately, it looks like you still haven't grasped the basics of how to cite your sources. Because of this, you'd left the Guardian page in a broken state when you last edited it. Until you master this basic skill, you can't attempt anything more complex. So for now, all of your in-text references should follow this format:

<ref>Smith 1978, p.123</ref>

Surname, year of publication, and page number. That's it. We can deal with more complex examples as they arise, but if you can at least follow the above pattern consistently, we'll be way ahead of where we are right now. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I will endevour to do as you ask. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yankee Air Museum

Hi Ken; I have just removed yet another set of claims by you that are completely devoid of references. Please stop.

You've been around long enough (and had it pointed out by enough people) to know that this is not acceptable.

I want very much to keep you here, because I think you make some extremely valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages. However, if you cannot or will not say where you get your information from, it might not be possible to keep you editing. I am prepared to extend whatever help I can, for as long as I need to, to help you with the technical side of getting your citations right. But you need to do your part too.

I hate to bring out the stick, but finally it comes to this:

• The very next time I see you making claims without citing a reliable source (by Misplaced Pages's definition) including the page number if it's a print resource, I will seek administrative action.

Enough is enough. :( --Rlandmann (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Afer the garbage that BillCat introduced to the Stealth helicopters article I quite agree. Your intrest is not in protraying factual information as much as riding the wave popular opinion, and there is no place for that here. From now on I will cease to introduce any new material and concentrate on deleting the information that is not properly cited. You have enlightened me in your manner of conduting business here. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

With regard to your request for a reference for every sentence at McDonnell F2H Banshee and Martin AM Mauler, you really need to explain why you are challenging them on the talk page. Although we assume good faith but if it is a reaction to your warning above then please stop and consider that it could be seen as being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages requires checkable references for all information cited in these articles. There are a lot of facts presented in these articles that are questionable, and unreferenced. It is important that Misplaced Pages users be aware of this, which is why Misplaced Pages uses the citation system I have applied. It is in keeping with Misplaced Pages policy to warn users of unreferenced information, and to encourage editors to add references for the material, or to delete it. I note that some of these citations have already been removed without the required references added. This is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If I continue having problems with someone removing the citations I will have no other alternative but to notify a Misplaced Pages administrator. Whoever is doing this should consider themselves warned. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ken; I see that you re-added the unsourced material to the museum page. I've removed it again, and have raised the incident for discussion here. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Martin AM Mauler. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

These edits do not constitute vandalism, and are consistant with Misplaced Pages policy requiring a reference for listed information. Much of the information cited is questionable, and without references should be deleted. Attempts to remove the tags without adding the required reference or deleting the tagged information will result in the editor being brought to the attention of Misplaced Pages administrators. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

These articles are adequetly referenced - you are vandalizing them to make a WP:POINT based on the warning you recieved in the section above this one. Please stop vandalizing to make a point or you will be blocked from editing. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken, on a similar note, what is going on here? This isn't like you to get into editwars or crusades... FWiW, an admin is already involved; time to step back and have a coffee/tea/your choice of libation... Bzuk (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC).

Ken, I can see both sides of the argument here. Suggest that you leave this for this evening and come back tomorrow. Per WP:EW, 3 reverts is not a right, and edit warring may be determined to have taken place at a lower threshold than this. I'm sure you wouldn't want to get blocked, so maybe it's time for a break from this. Mjroots (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I returned to Misplaced Pages when several of my fellow writers commented to me at how speculative the aircraft articles had become. What I found was articles, some that I had created more than 8 years ago, that had become filled with speculative, and in some cases just plane false information. In many of them as much as 90% of the information that has been added is unsourced. There seems to be a small number of editors, probably less than a dozen, who are responsible for much of the problem. What I've found here is a very hostile environment. I called into question the aircraft performance data listed because most of it is unreferenced, and what is referenced is attriduted to several different publications that do not specify the standards they have employed for their data. I pointed out that there is a highly reguarded publication available online for around $5.00 that lists the performance specs for all American combat aircraft to a constant standard, so readers could compare aircraft performance confident that the information was uniform. This suggestion was rejected because the editors didn't want to spend $5.00 for the publication! The last straw was when one of the editors published in an article that he had identified the "mystery helicopter" used in the Bin Laden raid, and published this as fact. Since the U.S. government had not as yet identified this aircraft I corrected this as a "possible" aircraft for the raid. It was quickly changed back, and the editor justified his position by stating that his solution "seems pretty obvious". He totally misses the point that obvious or not, this is an encyclopedia and until the aircraft is positively identified by a reputable source he is not justified claiming the aircraft's identity. At this point the best course of action I can take is to place info tags on the information that is unsourced. This action has two beneficial results. 1.) It alerts casual readers that the information is unsourced and may be unreliable. 2.) It encourages other editors to address this problem by adding references or by deleting the passage. In the short time since I've done this I have already noted some editors stepping in and adding references to the information I have pointed out. So it is working. Sadly, there seems little I can do for a group of editors who write as fact what "seems pretty obvious", and won't specd $5.00 to get their facts straight. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you that the articles that you've been tagging need better citation. What people are reacting to here is not your requests for better citations, but what appears to be deliberate disruption on your part, apparently as a reaction against my recent warning about the possible consequences if you continued your long history of adding uncited claims to Misplaced Pages.

You are also grossly misrepresenting the reason why your proposal to standardise all US military aircraft specifications to Wagner failed: not because anyone wouldn't spend $5.00 on a book, but because you failed to convince anybody that standardising on any one single reference was worthwhile.

Furthermore, your account of the debacle around the stealth helicopter article is oddly confused. This is forgiveable, because of the general confusion around the article at the time. Perhaps if you point to the specific edits that you found problematic, you would make your case better.

Finally, it seems disingenuous for you to suddenly (yet correctly!) start demanding citations in articles when for the last two years, you yourself have been steadfastly reluctant to ever source any claims that you make. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate one important point -- you are perfectly capable of recognising where a claim in an article requires a citation. You can therefore never plead ignorance when adding unreferenced facts to Misplaced Pages articles.

Ken, it's no secret that many (probably most) Misplaced Pages articles -- not just articles about aircraft -- are not referenced as well as they should be. This poses a fundamental problem of credibility for Misplaced Pages, and it's something that the community has been paying more and more attention to over the last few years. Liberally spraying seven or eight articles with {{Fact}} tags isn't going to help that effort, though. You could instead provide citations for the missing information yourself, or engage with your fellow editors on the talk pages of the articles concerned and offer some constructive feedback.

You've been here long enough to know (or ought to know) that we simply don't have the manpower to address all of the demands that you've made simultaneously. However, like I said, I think that even if your motivations look misplaced to me, you are indeed pointing to real problems. I'm happy to work with you on getting them fixed. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Specific point to:

(cur | prev) 20:49, 6 May 2011 BilCat (talk | contribs) (2,170 bytes) (Reverted g-f edits by Ken keisel - stealth on helicopters is about noise as much as radar detection; details on the stealth Black Hawk are covered in the main UH-60 article) (undo)

(cur | prev) 21:04, 6 May 2011 BilCat (talk | contribs) (1,952 bytes) (Undid revision 427809272 by Ken keisel (talk) - no) (undo)

The issue here is that BilCat identifies a specific aircraft as having been involved in the raid. My modifications were minor, altering the wording to read that it was "possibly" the aircraft used in the raid. Since no identification of the type used had been made by official sources this was entirely appropriate. BilCat seems to want to play WikiLeaks here, and this is not the place to be doing that. I am more dissapointed that this issue was not addressed by anyone apart from me, which re-enforces my belief that this group of editors is not looking for verifiable data when posting. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(emphasis mine). The claim that a modified Black Hawk was rumoured to have been key to bin Laden's death was cited to two reliable sources: Wired, and the BBC. I offer the following observations:

1. The article already strongly indicated that the use of a modified Black Hawk in the raid was nothing more than a rumour. This should be self-evident from the text quoted above.
2. The article cited the rumour to two reliable sources. We could be confident then that the rumour existed. Note that this is an entirely different thing from claiming that the rumour is true — neither the Misplaced Pages article nor its sources claimed that.
3. The text about the Black Hawk rumour was not contributed by BilCat. It was contributed by Araignee in this edit at 04:25, 6 May 2011, cited initially to the Wired article. At 12:19, 6 May 2011, Fayenatic_london added the BBC citation.
4. Prior to your edit at 20:34, 6 May 2011, BilCat's only contribution to the article was to remove an uncited claim by Araignee that the RAH-66 Comanche had been cancelled in favour of the Bell ARH-70 Arapaho.
5. Following the two edits that you complained about, I count four more edits that BilCat made to the article: , , , and

At no point in any of that did BilCat identify "a specific aircraft as having been involved in the raid" (and indeed, neither did anybody else!) This claim existed only in your own personal misreading of the article, which is presumably why nobody else felt the need to address it!

To me, the strangest part of your accusation is that you knew that the article specifically said that the modified Black Hawk was a rumour, because you specifically (and erroneously) copyedited "rumored" to "was rumored" in this edit and again in this edit. In the second edit, you even changed the spelling of the word, so you definitely knew that it was there. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised at you. If you read BilCat's change it reads as follows;

• A modified Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk (2011), rumored to have been key to the death of Osama bin Laden

By writing it in this manner BilCat first identifies a particular aircraft "A modified Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk (2011)", then links that aircraft to the Bin Laden raid by following it with "rumored to have been key to the death of Osama bin Laden". The BBC article he cites makes no mention of the aircraft being a Black Hawk. It doesn't support BilCat's claim in any way. The articled from "Wired" is highly speculative, exploring everything from the Comanche to Area 51. From that article one could draw a variety of conclusions beyond the one BilCat makes. I would also add that Wired.com is hardly a good source for factual information on "mystery" aircraft. The author was jumping onto the bandwagon of popular speculation in the wake of a developing news story, not describing an official news release from the U.S. military. BilCat sums up the problem himself when he stated on the WikiProject Aircraft Talk page "At this point, there's not much doubt it was a modified UH-60 that crashed." Without any official announcement from the U.S. military to the aircraft's true identity that statement is purely PoV. BilCat, and other editors writing on a developing story, must refrain from adding material before an official statement is released. Stating that there is "not much doubt" does not make the claim true. Ask yourself this, would you like me to start using Wired.com as a source, or claiming there's "not much doubt"? - Ken keisel (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's only a single dot point in the article though, taken here quite out of context. With its context intact, the article as restored by BilCat at 21:04, 6 May 2011 (note again that this text was not originally his) reads:

(again, emphasis mine). In other words, identical to the passage I quoted above, as the article stood before either you or BilCat had touched it. I suspect your taking that line out of context also is why you felt the need to incorrectly amend "rumored" to "was rumored".

Some more observations:

1. "The BBC article he cites" -- this citation was added by Fayenatic_london, not BilCat.
2. "makes no mention of the aircraft being a Black Hawk" -- yes it does:

   “

   The tail of the top secret aircraft survived, providing a treasure chest of clues for aviation experts. After some detective work, these experts have concluded it was a UH-60 Blackhawk, heavily modified to make it quieter and less visible to radar. -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13297846

   ”

3. "doesn't support BilCat's claim in any way" -- demonstrably false, and I think you mean "doesn't support Fayenatic london's claim in any way" (which is, of course, just as false)
4. "Wired.com is hardly a good source for factual information on "mystery" aircraft" -- I agree wholeheartedly, but that's not what the citation is used for here. The citation provides evidence that rumours exist that the aircraft was a modified Black Hawk. Neither the Wired article nor Misplaced Pages's claim that the rumours are necessarily true.
5. "editors writing on a developing story, must refrain from adding material before an official statement is released" -- this is absolutely, positively untrue. As soon as a story appears in a source that meets Misplaced Pages's reliability standards, we're completely free to refer to it. There is absolutely no onus or expectation to wait for confirmation from the US military or from anybody else. In any case, it's unlikely that the US military would release a statement to say "the aircraft is rumoured to be a modified Black Hawk", which is what the Misplaced Pages article presently claims.
6. "Stating that there is 'not much doubt' does not make the claim true" -- I agree 100%, and you will note that BilCat never made any such claim in the article.
7. " would you like me to start using Wired.com as a source, or claiming there's 'not much doubt'?" -- I'd be more than happy for you to cite Wired. Most of the time, I'd be happy for you to cite anything at all. And as long as you don't do it in an article, you can express whatever opinion you like about the amount of doubt associated with any claim you choose.

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The mediation request you recently filed

I'm not sure where you were going with that request for mediation, but you didn't file it at all properly so I had to delete that. If you want to re-request mediation, read WP:RFM/G, then submit it in accordance with the instructions. AGK 23:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning

You have been asked to stop your additions of citation needed tags as it appears your are trying to make a WP:POINT and a clearly being disruptive. Please stop adding this citation needed tags and edit waring and discuss your concerns with other editors or your editing priviliges may be withdrawn for disruptive behaviour. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference bbc-binladen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Axe, David. Aviation Geeks Scramble to ID bin Laden Raid’s Mystery Copter, wired.com, May 4, 2011