Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:51, 16 September 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Boeing 737

Just a note Ken concerning your recent discussion on the 737 talk page. You had a genuine concern about the statement that the lack of doors saved weight, although it had actually been removed before your first talk page edit! What should have been a discussion on your concern was sidetracked by a bit of who did what accusations. I appreciate you apologised to BillCat but then still did not have an appreciation of the edit sequence in the article. Can I just remind you to please check the edit summary of the article before making statements about other editors and motives, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

After citing the statement for removal I deleted it in my revision as of 18:24, 20 August 2011. Fnlayson restored the statement in his revision of 18:30, 20 August 2011. He added a reference to the statement in his revision of 00:40, 24 August 2011. That reference did not agree with the statement. When I pointed out the problem to him on his talk page I was under the belief that it was BilCat who had added the reference. Fnlayson agreed, and told me my gripe was with BilCat. Apparently the problem was actually Fnlayson all along, first re-posting this statement after I had deleted it, then adding a reference that didn't support the claim. - Ken keisel (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You still have not understood the edit sequence and who did what, perhaps it may be best to apologise to all concerned on the talk page and move on. I do see the an issue in the expection that a citation required would result in the removal of the text after only four days, it is usual for citation requests to be left for weeks not days particularly since this text has been in the article for a while and not a new addition. Take care with your edits and accusations Ken and as I suggest it may be best to move on. MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting your information on the ammount of time that should pass before the imformation is deleted. On the article VC-25 BilCat decalred that 24 hours was the appropriate length of time before deleting information cited for reference. Unless someone can prove him wrong I will go by his standard. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

From the documentation for the CN tag: "Except for certain kinds of claims about living people, which require immediate production of inline citations, there is no specific deadline for providing citations. Please do not delete information that you believe is correct simply because no-one has provided a citation within an arbitrary time limit. Where there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a citation can be provided."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If this were true than I would be fully justified in restoring the information I posted to the VC-25 article without fear that BilCat would again remove it within his 24 hour requiement. I want clarification here that BilCat's actions were inappropriate. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that sort of thing doesn't get discussed on user talk pages -- it belongs on article and policy talk pages and noticeboards. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Than please identify/link the correct noticeboard/policy talk page where it should be posted for discussion. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, if you'll check Ken's talk page history, you'll see that he has been warned on many occasions for adding uncited material to articles. It is in that context that I removed his addition to the VC-25 page, about 38 hours after he restored the item (and Fnlayson had added a Fact tag 3 mintues later). The item was related to the supposed announcement of the retirement of one of the VC-25, which I deem as something that does need a citation to remain. At no point did I ever place a time limit on Ken, and I certainly never said anything "24 hours" as a fixed time limit. I do note that Ken has still not provided a reliable source (or even an unreliables one) for the item in question, 9 days later. I did do an internet search to verify the information at the time, though I haven't searched for it since then. Perhaps I am being to harsh, and that is for others to judge, but given Ken's penchant for adding uncited info, I believe a hard line is needed with him. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, my advice, for what it's worth (not much these days, considering inflation....), you've gone after the wrong guy, I added the reference source in question. I couldn't find a specific source that dealt with the issue, so re-edited the passage slightly and removed the cite needed tag. See the rest of the story on the B737 talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Bzuk, I've re-checked the article log so many times, and I still only see the reference being added by Fnlayson in his revision of 00:40, 24 August 2011. I'm not sure how I could be missing an edit by you, but I have no reason to doubt your integrity, so I accept your explanation. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, it is my understanding that you are not an administrator normally associated with aviation articles. I respectfully request that you sequester yourself from this discussion, and allow those familiar with the subject matter to resolve the issue. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Request respectfully denied. You're welcome to try to get a different result at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but watch out for those WP:BOOMERANGS... --19:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

BilCat, SarekOfVulcan states, "From the documentation for the CN tag: "Except for certain kinds of claims about living people, which require immediate production of inline citations, there is no specific deadline for providing citations. Please do not delete information that you believe is correct simply because no-one has provided a citation within an arbitrary time limit. Where there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a citation can be provided."" It appears you have taken it upon yourself to decide that 38 hours was appropriate based on your perception of my edits. None of the edits in question involved false information, or contained malicious intent, it was merely information that you felt should be cited with a reference. In this respect you have exceeded the policy Sarak mentioned, and I don't think you can deny that deleting information that was likely factual after only 38 hours is impolite at best. I have already apologized to you for my mistake, and I feel an apology is now due from you for your actions on the VC-25 article. If you wish to add a fact citation tag to my edits by all means do so, but give other editors a chance to locate references as well. There is nothing malicious going on here, and your response has been way over the top. As an explanation, I received the news about the VC-25 from the director of archives at the Air Force history office, who received it from the director of restoration at the museum. This shouldn't be viewed as so threatening. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, Milb1 just pointed out via his page that I had added the original fact tag to the tire/hubcap section that got this all started, per this diff. I had fogotten that I had added several Citation needed tags in the edit where I had restored the 737 reenging info, and I didn't recognize it in the edit summary, and I hadn't checked the diff until now. So I did edit that section, but only that one time to tag it. Hence the confusion. My apologies for missing that. - BilCat (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Absolutely unsolicited advice following: In this virtual wickywackywonderland, which we both now inhabit, two conceits may be of use:

1. Institute the water off a duck's back premise for any contentious exchanges with wiki editors/overlords.
2. If the topic will not appear on the local/national/international news that evening/fortnight/decade, then it probably isn't all that important... Again, remember, totally disregard any of the above, but... 19:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Ken, please stop pasting my entire signature -- it's distracting. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please say something nice. :) - Ken keisel (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm... I haven't blocked you lately, that's nice, right? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL! - Ken keisel (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I'm sorry if you think I'm being unreasonable here, but when it comes to aircraft on display/survivors, you have a history of not citing reliable sources. I'm not doubting the veracity of the VC-25 retirement info, but personal knowledge is considered original research on WP, and can't be used. When the info is deemed important enough to release publically, I'm sure it will be released. Until then, the information is not verifiable, and shouldn't be on WP. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What I think you're missing is that I have the ability to get the information long before it becomes available to the public in a press release. That gives Misplaced Pages an edge in providing upcoming changes to aircraft displays. If the information I'm providing starts becoming false you would have an argument, but that hasn't been the case. Why not deal with problems if and when they become problems and give me the benefit of the doubt? - Ken keisel (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Because, as pointed out above that is strictly against Misplaced Pages policy. WP:Verifiability is one of the WP:Core content policies, not just a random guideline to cast aside when convenient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. - BilCat (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to follow up on that, as I can see some contradictions in the advice given. If it is about a living person it needs a source even if it is uncontentious. Given that aeroplanes are not living people, there is less issue about needing to provide a source immediately, especially if other folks in the know agree the information is right. However, if challenged to provide a source, it is up to you to provide it, and if you don't and it is removed, then you would be the one in the wrong if you added it back without a source. Hope this is clear. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Ken's issue is with how long the item should remain in an article with a fact tag. You are right that when it's not rleated to a livign person, we have more leeway here. However, as Ken has admitted, this is insider info that hasn't been released. His edit summary at the time, "restored information - add a citation tag until I get all the document ation - they just got the word they're getting #2800", let us know at that time this wasn't publically relaeasd info, and that's why I removed it so quickly. - BilCat (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

BilCat, ask yourself, how does it benefit Misplaced Pages to delete this information? I think you're taking this way too far. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Kem, you've already admitted this isn't publically released info, and we have no idea how long it will be before the info is released, or if the gov't may make changes to the plan in the meantime. Your post contained several very specific points of info that ought to be cited, such as the timing of the replacement, the claim that its increased use came between 2001-1008, etc. Given the current environmnt of pending military budget cuts, and the fact that there is no planned replacement in the procument pipeline, to my knowledge, the plane may very well be kept in service beyond 2015, even if at a reduced usage. There are just to many unknowns to keep info we know isn't verifiable by reliable published sources. WP's policies exist for a reason, and no one is exempt, no matter how well-meaning they are. - BilCat (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(Outdenting a bit - responding to the correspondence more generally). As I said, information not in a BLP does not need to be removed instantly, but if someone removes the information on the grounds that it is not cited, it may not be readded without a citiation. That's your standard requirement for verification. The other policy that may be relevant here is WP:CRYSTAL. Although this is normally invoked for entertainment productions and media events, the general principal that it is crystal ball gazing until the lawyers and accountants have signed up is probably true everywhere. If there is something that you can source the scuttlebutt to, you might say "it is being discussed" or "it appears to be proposed that", but if all you have is something in your email in-tray (which is what it sounds like), it will have to wait until something emerges to verify it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As you can imagine, all activities involving the 89th Airlift Wing are subject to high security, so any information that does get out is unlikely to have documentation coming with it. The choices here are to have little or no new information in the article, or to add the solid information when it comes in, and continue searching for references or documentation as it becomes available. In the case of the retirement of 28000, the limiting factor for the lifespan of the VC-25 is not TT hours, but total takeoff/landings. 28000 was estimated to be okay for operation through 2020, but the connection the museum has to the 89th Wing explained that the administration from 2000 to 2008 discarded the use of all of the smaller VC aircraft that had traditionally been used by presidents for short flights. Instead, that administration used the VC-25s exclusively for all presidential travel. As a result, the number of takeoff/landing operating the aircraft was asked to perform increased dramatically, and the airframe has exceeded, or is about to exceed, its maximum T/L limit. The airframe cannot be overhauled as part of a SLEP once that limit is reached, and must be retired (especially considering who the passengers are). The current administration is evaluating its options, and a contract proposal has been offered for a replacement (which Airbus has stated they will not participate), but the current administration has indicated that they will not pursue any replacement aircraft in the current economic climate. VC-25 28000 will be decommissioned most likely around 2014, with its last flight being performed in a ceremony over the Museum in Dayton, as was the case previously with 76000. The museum staff are currently deciding which interior configuration in which to display the aircraft. It arrived at the beginning of George H.W. Bush's administration, but was operated most actively by his son. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I do see the problem. I strongly suspect will have this information, but I don't have a current subscription. See if you can find someone who does. Some of those statements can be sourced separately (the airframe life, the attitude of the administration to be replaced). Alternately, if you could persuade the museum to publish on its website that it expects to get a one for display, that would be a reliable enough source for this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Museum won't be able to say anything until they have an arrival date. The information is still sensitive, and they won't want to do anything to threaten their relationship with the 89th Wing. There will be an announcement made to members and friends of the Museum to notify them of the aircraft's arrival, but that will be just a few months before it arrives. A decommissioning ceremony like this will attract a crowd of several thousand. They had over ten thousand for the retirement ceremony for 76000, Kennedy's plane. The information about a replacement aircraft is already on the "Air Force One" article, but not that the current administration won't purchase one. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's clear enough. WP:CRYSTAL applies here - you can't say anything onwiki about what will be in the announcement until that announcement is made. The info about the replacement can probably be sourced - I'm sure a dig in the public archives will turn up the Obama administration saying they don't intend to pay for a replacement, for example (in the UK, someone would have asked the question at Prime Minister's Question Time, but I'm sure there's some way the US government would make the statement).Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The miliraty is accepting design submissions for a replacement aircraft, but unofficially the current administration will not be authorizing any funds for its construction. They're going to wait until after the 2012 elections to deal with $400M luxury aircraft. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine you can find a journo somewhere speculating similar. It seems school of the bleedin' obvious. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Image to identify an aircraft

Ken, to send me the image, go to my page and click on the Email this user "pointer" on the left toolbox. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

Bzuk, I can't find a Email this user pointer on your left toolbox. Can you send a link to it? - Ken keisel (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just click the link you created LOL. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It just pops back with "No Send Address". I checked, and I have a valid email address registered with Misplaced Pages so I'm not sure what the problem is. Bzuk, please send me an email to kkeisel@gmail.com and I will send the photo back to you. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Conversation you may want to join

Hi Ken, please see the talk page regarding the Airco DH.9A's provisions for an internal bomb bay. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Witteman-Barling Bomber discussion

Thanks Ken, above and beyond...Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I agree. Any chance I can get a consensus on changing the name to "Barling XNBL-1"? I have a couple editors suggesting that change. Most researchers will be searching for the "Barling Bomber" and may be confused if they only find an aircraft called the "Whittman-Lewis". I really think the Ho-229 naming convention applies in this case. The Barling was never called the Whittman-Lewis in operation. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Even though consensus is generally thought to be "vote counting" it really is a more complex system of decision-making. The actual result of a consensus is the acceptance of a decision, or at least one, everyone can live with. My reading of the discussion string is that the flow is now more of a concession that the official and unofficial combining of names will prevail. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

I think that as long as the "Barling" name is first I could live with that. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction, I just returned from the Air Force archives at Wright-Pat where I had them pull the airplane's original 1923 specifications book. It identifies the aircraft only as the "Barling Bomber". Bzuk, I will forward a copy of my scans to you tomorrow. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, you forgot to notify the other involved editors of the posting you made at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, so I did that for you this morning. JohnInDC (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I was having difficulty getting the posting to appear. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Combining refs

Ken, please do not repeatedly paste the same ref into articles -- combine multiple occurrences of the same citation using WP:NAMEDREFS. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, I spent ten minutes fixing it and when I tried posting the work it was erased by an "edit conflict" generated by you. If you're not going to give me a chance to fix it before editing on it yourself you're just wasting my time. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And I've asked you before not to copy and paste my entire signature.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to help, please correct the spelling of the title for the article I just finished. It should be "Gerhardt Cycleplane", not "Gerhardt Cycloplane". - Ken keisel (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Requested moves. While you're waiting, you can fix the rest of the typos in that article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if you were helpful, instead of just harrassing. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please actually explain what you're doing in the WP:EDITSUMMARY field, instead of putting "updated entry" for every single edit summary -- that's almost as unhelpful as omitting it altogether. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I used "reply" this time. You're welcome. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Per your request I moved the article to Gerhardt Cycleplane. I also used a named reference format per WP:NAMEDREFS. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC) – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Miners Minors

Minors who edit Misplaced Pages are not required to disclose that they are minors. In fact, in many cases, minors who edit Misplaced Pages are advised not to self-identify as a minor. Demanding of an editor (or of those watching their talk page) that they specify whether or not they are a minor, as you did here, is unacceptable in my view. Please don't do it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but unfortunately --SarekOfVulcan's stalking behavior has become so disturbing it was necessairy to establish if this editor is merely a child, or a real danger here. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1. You don't get to "establish" if an editor is a minor. Not for any reason.
2. Is there some confusion between "stalking" and WP:HOUND here? Stalking is an activity that has real life implications, and may justify an assertion that "real danger" is involved. Merely commenting where another editor has also commented, is not stalking; it may or may not fall under WP:HOUND. There is a very significant difference between the two. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Accusations of stalking. Thank you.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sarek

Please do not accuse other editors of stalking you, as you did here. As was pointed out at Sarek's talk page, it is part of his (voluntary) job to check up on edits that may be problematic. If you have a dispute about content, discuss it in article talk. Thanks, --John (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the "talk page" on the Gerhardt Cycleplane and the Marshmallow sofa you will see that I have attempted to discuss SarakOfVulcan's problem edits with him there. He has never replied. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

O RLY? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You have never edited the former page, but I see your post at the latter. That's fine, but please don't accuse him of stalking you when he is only doing his job. --John (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Right now he's placing information that needs to be immediately deleted due to lack of references, or accuracy, on every article I edit. I don't believe this is his job. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of this and therefore I don't agree with you. --John (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you check out his edit history on Gerhardt Cycleplane and Marshmallow sofa articles. His claims and edits were found to be false. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I already did, and in fact I edited both articles when I saw you two discussing it on his talk page. There are two issues here; one is the content dispute (which I am not all that interested in) and the other is the issue of you making accusations about an admin which don't stand up to scrutiny. It is the second one you need to stop. You cannot win a content dispute by falsely alleging stalking. Do you understand? --John (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

John, I would be happy if he(?) just stopped editing every article right after I do. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's wikihounding (if that's what he's doing, consistently and without good reason), not stalking or "real danger". OK? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I'm not here to gang up on you. Quite the opposite. I'm here because I feel like this issue could be resolved if cooler heads prevailed. I don't think that Sarek has been going about this in the right way and I sympathize with the feeling of being wikihounded. It appears to me, that in several of these cases, Sarek has reverted your additions because he has been unable to verify the sources on his own. At times this has caused you to add the information back with different sources verifying the information. I have suggested to Sarek at AN/I that it would be more collegial not to revert, but discuss the referencing with you instead, especially if the issue is simply poor use of references as opposed to incorrect information. I'm sure you can appreciate the fact though that we do need to be careful to get the right sources up when we add accurate information to articles. Other editors will have no way to distinguish false information from accurate information if they can't find the information in the sources. So what can be done going forward? Do you think you could put Sarek's mind at ease by promising to be more meticulous with your sourcing? Perhaps then he can promise not to Wikihound your edits and to discuss edits with you instead of simply reverting you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)