# User talk:Tim Zukas

## Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Tim Zukas! I am Elektrik Shoos and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

elektrikSHOOS 02:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

## September 2010

This page is your user talk page, where people can communicate with you. Generally, you shouldn't be creating drafts here. Drafts, instead, should be created in subpages of this page. This is referred to as a userspace draft. If you go to Help:Userspace draft, it will provide a handy link to help you create one.

If you want to experiment with Wikipedia's syntax, you can use either Wikipedia:Sandbox, or you can create a personal sandbox for yourself by clicking this link and editing.

Thank you for editing Wikipedia. elektrikSHOOS 01:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

## Overland Route

You have now three times removed material from this article without explanation that appears in the original sources. If you find something that you dispute, please discuss it first in the page's talk section. Centpacrr (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

## Editing

You're an excellent copy editor. Don't be deterred by egotistical windbags. :) EarlofEdits (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

EarlofEdits is a sockpuppet of banned LTA Techwriter2B. The account was created today and used to make the posting above in order to demean me. The sock account has now been blocked from editing for block evasion and continuing his/her three-year practice of wikistalking literally dozens of WP editors with whom he/she has disagreed about anything. Centpacrr (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

## December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Long Island MacArthur Airport, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 03:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The OAG is reliable, but you have not provided the source (IE: A Link, etc) Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
No way for me to link to the 3/61 OAG, so might as well leave the info in the article and let the reader decide whether I'm lying about what the OAG says. Feel free to include a cautionary note-- "As everyone knows, this editor is not to be trusted, but FWIW he says the OAG shows this". Tim Zukas (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying your not trusted, I just want to make sure the material is sourced so it is reliable. It is nothing against you, but a strive to keep wikipedia as accurate as possible. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I certainly hope you are kidding about your contention that the source cited here also requires a "link" to something on the internet to be reliable. The Official Airline Guide (and its successor) is an internationally known -- and probably the most reliable -- of all possible sources for historic airline schedules. As a printed publication issued almost half a century ago, however, there is no reason to expect that a particular cited issue from 1961 would necessarily also be available on the internet, nor is there any requirement that it should be online to be acceptable as a reliable source on WP. The citation of "March, 1961, OAG," is more than adequate for the purpose. Please show a little more good faith next time. Centpacrr (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

## March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Chris!c/t 21:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The map is in the library; it has a name on it, and the name of a person who drew it. Aside from that, no description aside from "official-looking map drawn by BART or the contractors or somebody." Tim Zukas (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not sufficient for verifiability. You don't know when it was made. It is not clear if it is created by a professional map maker or just a train enthusiast. An "official-looking map" may not be official at all.—Chris!c/t 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
And please do not reinsert the unsourced info to the article. Even if all the info is true, we can't include unless it is verified by reliable second sources. The map you repeatedly claimed as source can't be used as one because it is not verifiable at this point.—Chris!c/t 21:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"The map you repeatedly claimed as source can't be used as one because it is not verifiable at this point." It is verifiable-- it's just hard for you personally to verify. Anything on paper is not verifiable by you, unless you can hold it in your hands. So, does Wikipedia not allow paper sources?
"You don't know when it was made." No, I don't, but I know when it says it was drawn (1971) and revised (1972).
"It is not clear if it is created by a professional map maker or just a train enthusiast." It's not clear to you, since you're not looking at it. We don't know who "D. Hughes" is/was, or who "V. P. Mahon Superintendent" is/was, but the map is clearly not a railfan project. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

## Latitude

I am sorry about the altercations we had over the TM page but I hope we can move on. I see that you are watching the Latitude page. What do you think of my comments on the talk page? I am surprised that there has been only one observation to date.   Peter Mercator (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume most of your proposed changes would be improvements. The Latitude article (like many Wikipedia articles) would best be divided into two parts: one has just the essentials, and has big arrows pointing to it, saying "READ THIS FIRST"; the other (much larger) part includes all the stuff about auxiliary latitudes and climate effects and tables of what countries are at what latitudes, and is headed "YOU CAN PROBABLY SKIP ALL OF THIS". The way Wikipedia works the essentials tend to get lost in an ocean of not-entirely-pointless stuff that may deserve to be in the article, but...
I've never tried to figure out whether "angular eccentricity" is 100% useless or just 99%-- in any case you're right, it belongs in a footnote if it belongs in the article at all.
(Maybe you saw the start of my article that would aim at explaining what the figures labelled "latitude" and "longitude" actually mean. Can't very well make it a separate article, but I hate to tack it onto Geographical Coordinate System and I don't see what else to tack it on to, so I haven't gotten around to finishing it.) Tim Zukas (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for delay in replying. Thanks for your comments. I shall probably go head with my new version of Latitude as it appears in my user space but it still needs much work. I agree that the more mathematical stuff should slide to the end: too many articles get too technical too soon.
I rate "angular eccentricity" as 99.5% useless; it just doesn't appear in the literature. I intend to remove it from the wiki pages and re-install 'e', 'f' as the basic parameters.
I did note your comments above. Of course it is important to stress that the measure of latitude is related to the choice of reference ellipsoid, as stressed in the ISO documentation. It would be really useful if you could document your figures above with the ellipsoids they reference. For the Latitude page I would like to have the position of a single world landmark (eg Eifel Tower) for a number of ellipsoids. Haven't had a chance to do this for I am fully occupied with a major project on ellipsoidal geodesics at the moment.   Peter Mercator (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

## Your Edits on the Article "Aeroméxico Flight 498"

(DC-9, you mean.)
Have you seen the chart of the LA area? A pilot planning a flight from Torrance to Big Bear can see at a glance that one piece of the TCA is directly in his way. We all agree he made a mistake; you seem to be saying the article should say the mistake was an easy one to make-- that he was "trying" to avoid the TCA, as if that were a hard thing to do.
My edit doesn't say he made a bonehead mistake (tho it certainly looks like he did); it just says he entered the TCA without clearance, which is of course true. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I went back and looked at what I wrote (I also clarified the TCA altitude). The article now says "The TCA included a triangular slab of airspace across the Piper's intended route, extending from 6000 ft to 7000 ft altitude in that area; the Piper could legally fly beneath this airspace without contacting ATC, but instead climbed into it." This is an utterly straightforward statement of the facts, giving no indication of how easy it would have been to avoid the mistake.
I see the report theorized that the pilot knew the TCA was there and planned to avoid it by visual navigation (i.e. looking at the ground, rather than tracking a VOR radial). It guessed maybe he misidentified a freeway or something.
By the way-- the Piper did have a transponder; it lacked Mode C (an altitude-reporting transponder). Tim Zukas (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

## Erroneous edit summary

Your recent edit summary in Solar time is in error: "(You don't "measure" an hour angle (except when it's zero). You measure altitude and azimuth.)" Local hour angle can be measured, to a reasonable approximation, with some sun dials, or a telescope with an equatorial mount. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I started to say you can't measure hour angle, but it's true you can measure it crudely, so I changed it to "don't". If you want to get the sun's hour angle halfway accurately, you don't measure it-- you measure the sun's altitude and/or azimuth, or some such thing. (Or you measure the time when it crosses the meridian-- even that isn't "measuring" the hour angle. In that case you're measuring the time, not the angle.) Tim Zukas (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The only practical measurement I can think of where the desired result is the hour angle of the sun (+ 12 hours) is with a sun dial. Navigators measure the altitude and angle between the sun and a landmark, with the desired result being the location on the earth and/or the azimuth of the line between the observer and the landmark. Land surveyors measure the angle between the sun and a landmark, the desired result being the azimuth between the observer and the landmark. In both cases, time is measured with a clock and the local hour angle of the sun, or an equivalent parameter, is calculated, not measured. Of course certain major observatories do observe the sun, but I believe they are mainly interested in the appearance of the sun's surface and other such data, and any information they obtain about the position of the sun is incidental. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, surveyors can use the sun to determine azimuth. Navigators too. They first calculate the sun's hour angle based on their hopefully-known longitude and the known Greenwich time-- they're not measuring its hour angle.
The sentence we're arguing about is "When the Sun is visible, an observer at any longitude may measure the Sun's position in the sky and calculate its hour angle, which is interpreted as local time for that observer." In other words, the sun's hour angle is what that observer is trying to learn (unlike the surveyor). But he still doesn't measure it, if he wants it accurately-- he levels up a transit and measures the suns altitude/azimuth. (Which means he has to already know where north is, and his latitude-- same as he would if he were trying to measure hour angle directly.) Tim Zukas (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, so we have a hypothetical person who knows where he is, knows what direction north is, and needs to know the sun's hour angle. Presumably he must not know what time it is, otherwise it would be easier and more accurate to calculate the hour angle. That seems like an unlikely scenario in today's world. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it is unlikely. So how would you rewrite the sentence? Tim Zukas (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Looking at the paragraph as a whole,

Solar time is a reckoning of the passage of time based on the Sun's position in the sky. The fundamental unit of solar time is the day. When the Sun is visible, an observer at any longitude may measure the Sun's position in the sky and calculate its hour angle, which is interpreted as local time for that observer. Currently the length of a mean solar day is about 86,400.002 SI seconds.

I see that it is quite a mess. The hour angle is not local time; one must add 12 hours to get local time. Also, 12 + local hour angle is local apparent time, but the next paragraph explains that there are two kinds of solar time, mean and apparent. So I would change it like this:

Solar time is a reckoning of the passage of time based on the Sun's position in the sky. The fundamental unit of solar time is the day., which is divided into 24 hours. Noon is the time when the Sun<ref>or, in the case of mean solar time, the fictitious mean sun</ref> crosses the local meridian. When the Sun is visible, an observer at any longitude may measure the Sun's position in the sky and calculate its hour angle, which is interpreted as local time for that observer. Currently the length of a mean solar day is about 86,400.002 SI seconds.

Jc3s5h (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why dump the last sentence?
In any case, if you're going to introduce "Noon" you shouldn't say "Noon is...", thus leading the reader to think there's one kind of Noon. Tell him immediately there are three Noons. (Or leave "Noon" out of the first paragraph.) The concept of "hour angle" needs to appear somewhere in the article-- otherwise no way to define time except at Noon. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think it was a good idea to go into details about one particular kind of time in the first paragraph. When I wrote "noon", I was wondering about a concise way to let people know there are several kinds of noon without bogging the paragraph down. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
If you want to keep the first paragraph short, better leave the word "noon" out of it. Find some other way to describe the sun being on the meridian. (No way to get around that.)
Some people don't like an introduction this concrete, but how about
Fix a tall pole vertically in the ground; on a sunny morning the pole's shadow points somewhat west, in the evening somewhat east. At some point during the day the shadow points exactly north or south (or disappears, if the sun is directly overhead); that instant is local apparent noon-- 1200 local apparent time. About 24 hours later the shadow will again point north/south, the sun seeming to have covered a 360-degree arc around the earth's axis. When the sun has covered exactly 15 of that 360 degrees (both angles being measured in a plane perpendicular to the earth's axis), local apparent time is 1300 exactly; after 15 more degrees it will be 1400 exactly. [And then in the next paragraph say 1200 to 1300 will not be exactly an hour of atomic-clock time.]
On second thought you're right-- the 86400.002-second mean solar day belongs in the article, but not in the first paragraph. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

## Your edits on Rolls-Royce Merlin

While you are most welcome to edit Rolls-Royce Merlin please recognise that as a Featured Article the editing standards have to be higher than usual: a great deal of work went into bringing it up to FA status and anything which is added should comply with the format used throughout the article. Thus, when adding references please use the acknowledged format, using a single reference book and including page numbers - simply adding "Jane's AWA 1938, 1941, 1945-46, 1949-50" is meaningless. The Jane's AWA 1945-46 is already listed in the bibliography under Bridgman, L

Secondly, I have the Jane's AWA 1945-46 - nowhere do I see a comment in the entry for the Rolls-Royce Merlin, or for any other British engine, saying specifically that the Merlin was an exception amongst British aero engines in that it was R-H tractor - while several other entries say L.H Tractor or Left Hand tractor under "Airscrew Drive (eg: Napier Sabre), not every entry specifies the direction of propeller rotation and, as a reference, does not back up your point that the Merlin (Kestral not described) was unusual. If you wish to make this point please provide a reference which specifically says so, rather than using a shot-gun approach. Min✪rhist✪rianMTalk 22:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tim:

You wrote:

"declination" is ordinarily measured at the center of the earth, which isn't quite spherical, so a line from the center of the earth to the object is not quite perpendicular to the Earth's surface. It turns out that when the moon is directly overhead its geocentric declination can differ from the observer's astronomic latitude by up to 0.005 degree. The importance of this complication is inversely proportional to the object's distance from the earth, so for most purposes it's not a concern for the sun and planets."

Why is this effect inversely proportional to the distance of the object from the earth? Why would it not apply equally to a star that is overhead? The inverse proportionality suggests that the effect is somehow caused by parallax, but parallax is not now mentioned in the paragraph.

I made some edits to this paragraph recently with the prime objective of making it make sense. Previously, it was gibberish. Now, you've largely put it back to the way it was.

I wonder what original author wanted it to say.

Maybe the best solution would be just to remove this paragraph altogether. It doesn't really contribute anything significant to the article.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Why is this effect inversely proportional to the distance of the object from the earth?"
If we can assume a star is infinitely distant, then a star with declination 30 degrees will be directly above an observer at (astronomical) latitude 30 degrees exactly. An object that has declination 30 degrees and is one meter above the surface of the earth will be above latitude 30.17 deg. (So the effect isn't actually inversely proportional to distance from the surface of the earth; I'm too lazy to figure out if it's inver propor to distance from the earth's center.)
"I wonder what original author wanted it to say."
To make clear what declination is, the article needs to say that an object with declination D degrees is always directly above a point on the earth pretty close to latitude D degrees. If it says that, the reader will naturally wonder: how close? So the article should at least halfway answer that question. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I looked again at your edit and saw again it was a bit muddled. There are only two effects: the deflection of the vertical, which is the one that applies to the stars and everything else, and the other one, the parallactic effect that (for practical purposes) only affects the moon and other nearby objects. That one's harder to visualize and I didn't think the reader would be that interested in the details; the effect exists, it can amount to about this much, but exactly how it happens isn't that important. (If he is interested in the details the reader can likely figure them out for himself.) Tim Zukas (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
If we can assume a star is infinitely distant, then a star with declination 30 degrees will be directly above an observer at (astronomical) latitude 30 degrees exactly.
Agreed. No problem.
An object that has declination 30 degrees and is one meter above the surface of the earth will be above latitude 30.17 deg. (So the effect isn't actually inversely proportional to distance from the surface of the earth; I'm too lazy to figure out if it's inver propor to distance from the earth's center.)
Really? Relative to what point is the declination being measured? If it's relative to the earth's centre, then if the earth were transparent, an observer at the centre would see the object and the distant star appear superimposed. A (very small) observer on the earth's surface who sees the star vertically overhead will also see the nearby object vertically overhead. He will be looking along the same ray of light as the observer at the centre.
Where does the 30.17 deg. figure come from?
Seen from the moon, the earth has an angular diameter of about two degrees. So, relative to the fixed stars, there is a parallax effect that shifts the apparent position of the moon by about two degrees as seen by observers at opposite sides of the earth. This effect is inversely proportional to the distance of the observed object from the earth. But it has nothing to do with the object being overhead for the observer.
DOwenWilliams (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
"Where does the 30.17 deg. figure come from?"
If you send a line outward from the center of the earth at an angle of 30 degrees from the plane of the equator (so it hits the celestial sphere at declination 30 degrees) it will pass thru the spheroid that we use to approximate the earth's surface at latitude 30.17 deg-- i.e. the angle whose tangent is $a^2/b^2$ times the tangent of 30 deg. ('a' is the equatorial radius of the spheroid and 'b' is the "polar radius"-- the distance from the center to a pole.)
If that's not clear, imagine the earth is much more oblate-- say its cross-section is an ellipse ten times as wide as it is tall. Send a ray out from the earth's center at 30 deg to the plane of the equator. At what latitude will it pass thru the earth's surface?
"A (very small) observer on the earth's surface who sees the star vertically overhead will also see the nearby object vertically overhead. He will be looking along the same ray of light as the observer at the centre."
You forgot a vertical line at the earth's surface doesn't point to the center of the earth, except at the equator and the poles. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If you send a line outward from the center of the earth at an angle of 30 degrees from the plane of the equator (so it hits the celestial sphere at declination 30 degrees) it will pass thru the spheroid that we use to approximate the earth's surface at latitude 30.17 deg-- i.e. the angle whose tangent is $a^2/b^2$ times the tangent of 30 deg. ('a' is the equatorial radius of the spheroid and 'b' is the "polar radius"-- the distance from the center to a pole.)

Ok. So I suppose if the observer were to move southward by 0.17 degrees of latitude (assuming he is in the Northern Hemisphere) he would reach a point from which the distant star would appear to be overhead. This would involve him moving about 19 km. If the "nearby" object is H km from the earth, it will appear displaced from the vertical by about 19/H radians. If H is the distance of the moon from the earth, about 380,000 km, the angle comes to about 0.0028 degrees. That's something like you said previously.
Fine. It makes sense now. The additional explanation you gave here made it clear. But if you want to describe this kind of thing in Wikipedia, I do think you should put sufficient explanation there too. Vaguely hinting at things really isn't enough.
But is this really important enough to be in the Declination article? If so, why not include a paragraph about the apparent declinations of geostationary satellites as seen by observers in various positions? My own feeling is that neither of these topics deserve to be there.
DOwenWilliams (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
"Vaguely hinting at things really isn't enough."
Nothing vague about what I said. I didn't take the space to explain it, but a lack of explanation doesn't make a simple statement "vague". "The effect can amount to 0.005 degree"-- how is that vague?
"But is this really important enough to be in the Declination article?"
The article needs to say that declination about equals latitude when the object is directly overhead-- that's by far the best way to explain what declination is. Once it says that, some elaboration on "about" is certainly called for; I'd say an eight-line paragraph isn't too much.
"If so, why not include a paragraph about the apparent declinations of geostationary satellites as seen by observers in various positions?"
What would the paragraph say, and why does the reader need to know that? Tim Zukas (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

He might want to aim a satellite dish.

I wrote a computer progam once that calculated the direction of a geostationary satellite as seen from anywhere on the earth. It's just an exercise in three-dimensional trigonometry, but some of the results might surprise some people. For example, as seen from north-temperate latitudes, the declination of a satellite is lower if it is close to the observer's longitude than if it is close to the eastern or western horizon. The program calculated the dates and times when satellites pass in front of the sun, or close to it, since this causes reception problems. (Radio waves coming from the sun cause interference.) The dates depend on the observer's longitude, relative to the satellite, as well as his latitude.

No. I'm not going to write this up on the Declination page. There's probably some other page where it would be more appropriate, if it isn't there already.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

## Rail freight template

I've created a template Template:Rail freight for the historical railroad freight statistics. The template makes it easier to add the statistics to pages, and it will also allow people to enhance the formatting by simply modifying the template.

One thing that should be added is a citation. Are you getting all the railroad statistics from the same source? We can add that to the template so that all the tables cite the same source. Otherwise, we might just add a citation parameter to the template. —Jim Irwin (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

They're all from the ICC annual reports-- "Statistics of Rwys in the US" and the successor "Transport Statistics". Tim Zukas (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

## Mount Umunhum

Looks like you have something you're trying to get across with your edits to Mount Umunhum that is not clear to me or to the other editors on the page. If you want, you can bring it up on the talk page. TJRC (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You agree with TJRC that "an early-warning radar station built in 1957" does not suggest that the cube dates from 1957?
It does, of course. What's the objection to a one-sentence footnote clarifying the matter? Tim Zukas (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The "radar tower" (not cube) does not date to 1957. It was not the original search radar on the site. AAFShistorian (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly-- that's my point. As the article now reads, the reader infers that the tower was built 1957. There should be a footnote (at least) saying that's not true.Tim Zukas (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I request that this discussion be moved to Talk:Mount Umunhum. My initial comment was specific to one editor, but the balance of this discussion concerns a specific article, not a particular editor, and should take place there. TJRC (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

## Runway end identifier lights your recent retraction

Dear Tim,

Please believe me when I state that edit I did on the REIF page was in good-faith. And I am not one of those editors on Wiki that starts cyper-fights when an edit I do is retracted or deleted. I just move on to the next project. But I will admit not being an expert in this field, but I am just curious, if you do know or have a pretty good idea, what was that strobe lightening system that was installed at what became JFK in 1956. And REIL seem to be the only thing that matched the description. I am asking just out of my own curiosity. Best Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As you see from the article, REIL is a pair of strobes about at the end of the runway-- not a string of strobes 2000-3000 ft long extending out from the end of the runway. The other error was that the approach lights never had multiple rows of strobes-- rather, multiple transverse rows of steady-burning incandescent lights with one strobe in each row.
You've noticed that approach-light pier that still extends into Jamaica Bay from the end of runway 7? It had a row of sequenced strobes starting around 1948-- Idlewild may have been first with that. When runway 4 became the instrument runway it got slope-line lights (which I guess don't have strobes) which were half-demolished by that LAI DC-6B in 1954 and replaced by the centerline lights with strobes in 1955 or 1956 or whenever it was. Tim Zukas (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Tim, Thank you for taking the time to give an explanation. I was in error posting that link. You were totally correct in deleting it. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

.

## Nashville International

Hey there, I see you did quite a few edits to Nashville International Airport today. First off, thanks for the contributions! Unfortunately none of the information appears to be sourced. Would you mind putting in some references? In the meantime, I'll be changing some of the items you put in as coordinates to links. If you could, please also cite those. Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tim, just another note about some of your edits on the BNA page. Please do not remove sourced information for unsourced information that contradicts the existing sources, such as this edit. Also, when adding new information, please try to keep to the style of the page, such as conversions for distances, coordinates, etc.. If you're just experimenting, please use your sandbox. I'll go through and try to do some cleanup, but don't be surprised if I end up reverting some of your edits. Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What's your objection to the edit you linked? What source do you think it contradicts? Tim Zukas (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, misread it...sorry! nf utvol (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
By the way, do you mind going through and correcting your citations to the style guide? I and others have worked pretty hard to try and get this standardized, so your help in keeping it like that is greatly appreciated! :) nf utvol (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking over the references in the article, they're mostly links, which mine can't be. How were you hoping to standardize them? Tim Zukas (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Here are some resources on citations, in addition to the above referenced style guide. Wikipedia:Citation_templates Wikipedia:Citation_tools. Also, please use the proper template when entering coordinates. You can find examples of that in the text. nf utvol (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Will you please go through and fix the citations to this article to the above listed templates? I'd like to have this reviewed again for a re-classification, and it will never be put above B class if citations aren't properly entered with the right templates. I'm not going to challenge you on them, I just want them to be entered correctly (in fact, pretty much everything you've added here has been a good addition content-wise). I'd go through and do it myself, but unless you want to scan them and email me copies of what you have, I don't have the resources to do it properly. I still would be interested in seeing those charts you have, too, if you can take the time to scan them and upload them to the Commons. Sounds like you have an interesting collection. nf utvol (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

## June 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Newark Liberty International Airport does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! JetBlast (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

## Citation templates

Hi Tim, I noticed on your recent edits to the F-104 Starfighter article, you added references to the FAI Web site, and listed off record numbers. In this sort of situation, it would be much more helpful to use the citation templates to link to each record, instead of just listing them. This article, like the article for Nashville International Airport, which you made similar edits to, have been attempting to get to GA status, and a lot of users are putting a lot of time and effort into these to get them polished enough to be put back up for consideration. This polishing includes keeping citations in good order. I and everyone else involved with these articles would really appreciate your help in this. Thanks!

Please see the following for info on citations and templates:

nf utvol (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

## Vertical deflection

I reverted the article again. As I said in my edit summaries (which you should use, too), articles are supposed to have an encyclopedic tone, per Wikipedia policy. Additionally, extended textbook-like walkthrough examples are also discouraged, again per Wikipedia policy. As such, the step-by-step example shouldn't be there, and the conversant part in the lede is redundant and unnecessary. --Xanzzibar (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

## July 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Midway International Airport does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Kairportflier (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

## MDW - Edit War

Hi! I don't want you to think I am being mean or anything of that sort. I am at my 3 edits as are you, it is officially an edit war at Chicago Midway International Airport. Could you visit the Talk:Chicago Midway International Airport and put your case for your edits in. I have gone to other users and requested they put in there input to close this dispute. Thanks! Kairportflier (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

## July 2012 - Final Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to the pages Port Columbus International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport and Chicago Midway International Airport. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Kairportflier (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you continue to add unsourced information you will be blocked AND any OAG things you add or old layouts WILL be reverted. Kairportflier (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Until there is a consensus, don't add it. If you do, I will simply remove it. We will talk about it, come to an agreement of some sort and then move on from there. That is a fair plan, so you don't add it until we finish this. Thank You! Kairportflier (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If there are no sources then don't add them. Kairportflier (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

## Talkback

Hello, Tim Zukas. You have new messages at Talk:Newark Liberty International Airport.
Message added 22:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JetBlast (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

## July 2012

Expect to be blocked regarding your disruptive edits. You continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Newark Liberty International Airport, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Kairportflier (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, you must provide a proper citation for information dependent on offline sources; a reference claim such as what you provided does not enable others to check the statement, is consequently useless for verification purposes, and thus its persistent addition is grounds for blocking. By following up your disruption with talk page comments, you have convinced me that blocking you would not help things, since it would get in the way of forming a consensus at the talk page, but be aware that you remain liable to being blocked if you persist in adding unverifiable information. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately, Wikipedia does its best to try to say what "unverifiable" means. A paper source that you can't easily look at isn't "unverifiable", as you'll see if you look at the rules. (A 1969 book that includes the 8/38 and 8/39 OAGs is doubtless buyable online, if you do want to look some time.)
By the way: there's never been any vandalism in this dispute, as is plain to anyone who looks at Wikipedia's definition of that. Tim Zukas (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You are correct on both points as I have also tried to point out in the EWR talk page discussion. Vandalism is a well defined and serious offense on WP, and charging another editor with it should never be done capriciously nor without clear, absolute, and unambiguous justification. Centpacrr (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you add this information by using an inline citation? Offline sources are fine, if proper attribution is provided. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Just stating that a 1968 book does give sufficient context of where this information is coming from and who authored it. As an encyclopedia, we are tasked with not only giving information, but also how we received it and where one can look for further information to validate it. I don't believe your edits are vandalism; however, they are becoming disruptive. If you have any questions about how to cite the information, please feel free to contact myself, or another editor if you wish. This stance isn't worth getting blocked for IMO, but it is getting to that point. Others may feel it has already reached it. Kindly Calmer Waters 03:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
"Why don't you add this information by using an inline citation?"
Why don't we add what information?
We can always tell the readers that the 4/57 OAG is Vol 13 No 7, published by American Aviation Publications Inc, headquartered in Washington DC. Would that satisfy everyone? If not, what would? Tim Zukas (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly the type of info that is needed in an inline citation, along with a page number and the name of the author or editor, if one is given. See Template:Citation. Carguychris (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. I know it's been in and out of the 24hr zone, but warning is needed. Chip123456 TalkContribs 20:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your recent edits to the Newark Liberty International Airport page and the Chicago Midway International Airport page still are not cited using the standardized formats and templates which you have been previously been pointed to a number of times by myself and a few other editors. Even though your edits are in good faith, and in most cases do in fact add useful content to the articles, this lack of regard towards common formatting rules and your participation in edit wars is starting to become disruptive. Please take the time to do this properly, otherwise, I will take the next step of referring this to the Mediation Committee. If it comes to this and you refuse or ignore a mediation request, it will be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee. nf utvol (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As I have previously noted above and in the EWR talk page, Tim, the information contained in your additions is fine and I support its inclusion, but your method of citing sources (i.e. "According to the May 1939 OAG ...") is not. I restored the information and corrected the citations of several of these earlier for you so that you can see how it is done and that information has now been allowed to stand by the community. Please use that format in your new and all future edits citing the OAG (and similar sources) or I suspect various editors other than myself are just going to continue to delete your otherwise valuable contributions and send you additional warnings about it not being correctly cited. Centpacrr (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

## Coordinates

Hi there! I have a quick question. Can I use the coordinates of a town as the coordinates of an institution in that town? For example, can I use the coordinates of Isfana as the coordinates of a high-school there? I enlarged this image and found the building. Is it possible to get the exact coordinates? Nataev (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Google maps does giv lat-lons, but I have no idea how good they are in that area. Here in the US they seem to usually be correct within a few meters.

Aside from that, the question is: has anyone determined a lat-lon for anything else around there? If they have then you can measure from there.

Then there's always lat-lon by the stars, which won't be that exact, but if you can't find anything better...Tim Zukas (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

ClemRutter (talk) helped me out. Thanks for replying! Nataev (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

## Northeast Corridor

Thanks for explaining the change! L.cash.m (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If anyone has any doubt about the speed rule, check how many railroads had 80-90-95 mph (and maybe 100 mph) limits in the late 1930s with no cab signals or ATC. That all ended circa 1950. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

## List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations

I opposed your addition to List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations because of 2 points:

1) It has to do with WP:Verifiability. If no one can easily verify that the info you added is true, then that info is probably not suitable for Wikipedia. You can't be like "Hey, just trust me." Now you said that an offline source exists. Offline sources are fine, but then you must provide a proper citation. Vague term like "a BART map from 1971" is not a proper citation. You need to provide extra info like who made it (name/organization), the date it was made, etc. And then it should be added to the article as an inline citation. If these info can't be provided, how can others trust that the info provided is correct? Also see WP:Citing sources.

2) Another point is WP:Notability. I argue that the milepost info is not notable to the general readers, except to maybe some railroad fans or some type of engineers. I think the fact that these info is only presented on 1 or 2 maps already proves my points.

Now, more than 1 editors have opposed your addition, meaning that the consensus is to not include it. Engaging in an WP:edit war in order to force your edit through is against Wikipedia rule. I urge you to stop adding that info unless you can adequately answer my points, or else you could be blocked if you persist in adding unverifiable information.—Chris!c/t 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"If no one can easily verify that the info you added is true, then that info is probably not suitable for Wikipedia."
Like lots of Wikipedia writers you think if the source is on paper, and the paper is more than... how far from where you're sitting? Five minutes walk? then it's not "verifiable". The people who designed Wikipedia knew better: they know lots of good sources are in libraries, with lots of info available nowhere else.
No doubt you're aware (at some level of your consciousness) that the mileposts I gave are all correct; anyone who had any doubts could check for himself the next time he's in a BART station-- or he can go to the library. Instead we have the three monkeys sitting in a row rigidly determined to see no truth, hear no truth, speak no truth.
"You need to provide extra info like who made it (name/organization), the date it was made, etc." Well, it says it's drawn by D Hughes, and it's titled and dated, but no indication who D Hughes is working for, BART or PBTB or some other contractor. Whoever was going to be looking at the map didn't care about that. Today the map is only a figleaf, to satisfy people who like to tell themselves they're keeping Wikipedia "verifiable", where "verifiable" means "approved by me".
"the milepost info is not notable to the general readers"
Yes, someone reading an article about a railroad naturally wouldn't want to know how many miles from one end of it to the other. Why would anyone want to know that? But he certainly would want to know what color BART maps use for the Richmond-Fremont trains. That's vital.

(I was surprised to see the date for the opening of West Oakland stayed correct. A good thing, since aside from those dates it's hard to see what use the list is to anyone. Aside from the dates, can you find a notable fact anywhere in the article as it is now?) Tim Zukas (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations&diff=550034569&oldid=549961223

Tim Zukas, I invite you to the above talk page so you can explain your reasons as to why you think undoing all the changes I made on this article was necessary. I invite everybody on this section so that you can give us insight as to why your changes should be upheld. I do not believe you want to dialogue your changes but I'm willing to listen anytime within the next 7 days. You do not have to justify it all, but at the very least I would like to know why you think the first sentence deserves not to be changed at all. Please use: Talk:List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations for any feedback.

Thank you.

Swestlake (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You have absolutely no reason to "undo" other people's changes if you do not have the capability of defending/clarifying or elaborating your position. When people like me stand up, the hit-n-runners try to find the easy way out. This nonsense stops with me.

Your edits are now on my watchlist.
Swestlake (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I undid your edits to Grade (slope) because you deleted material without giving any explanation either on the talk page or the edit summary. If you feel the article can be improved by removal of material, please provide some explanation. Thanks. —EncMstr (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

## Orthometric_height)

Yes, vertical is defined as opposite the direction of gravity at any point. But as you follow the direction of gravity toward the center of the earth, it is not a STRAIGHT line. That's why the theoretical definition says "line of force". I'll try to get a specific citation for the definition, but right now either of us could get banned for messing with it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHart93 (talkcontribs) 03:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

True, a vertical line isn't straight, and you might mention that, but of course the height measured along the curved vertical line is immeasurably different from the height along a straight line. In any case the fact that it's curved doesn't make it unvertical. 128.32.11.112 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

## Citation needed in "Solar time"

Your recent edit in "Solar time" did not provide an inline citation for a direct quotation. Please provide an inline citation. This is required by WP:CITE. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

## San Francisco International Airport

Will you please stop making wholesale edits to San Francisco International Airport without discussing them on the Talk page first. Your reason for your edits are really POV and I have no intention of starting a edit war. Nonetheless, you have deleted important information, which I hope will be reverted. Your whole editing history does seem to be destructive. Please remember you have been warned on your contributions before. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"you have deleted important information"
Show an example. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that the article neeeded some editing down and you have deleted some items which other editors have since restored, the fact remains that you embarked on a mass of edits without obtaining a consensus for them. You should know by now that this is not the way that Wikipedia operates. However, I have "said my piece" and hope that in future you will abide by Wikipedia conventions. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
So no important info got deleted? Tim Zukas (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not say that. As you well know, some of your edits have been reversed. I also note that you are still trying to edit war on this article. Can I, with all respect, suggest that you show a little civility in your replies - rather than the arrogant attitude you presently have. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"I did not say that."
You didn't say no important info got deleted? No one said you did say that. So did any? If so, what? Tim Zukas (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

## May 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on San Francisco International Airport. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You seem to also have been caught in an edit war at Newark Liberty International Airport in July, which nearly resulted in you being blocked for 3RR violations. You are at two for this 24-hour period. Thanks and please resolve on talk. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to talk, if you think I disimproved something. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I know you're a constructive contributor. It was brought to my attention, so I tried to stop the dispute w/o admin help (as it was not needed). Thanks, Tim. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 02:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles M. Schulz–Sonoma County Airport may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

## Rumours

Hi, Tim. Please don't restore the rumours about the Union Pacific GTELs being uprated to 10,000hp to that article unless you can find a source for them. Wikipedia is for verifiable facts, not rumours. If there's a reliable source for the rumour then at least the existence of the rumour is a verifiable fact; without even that, it doesn't belong in the article. Dricherby (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No question about the existence of the rumor. Haven't found the 1960s Trains issue that mentioned it, but Lee's book tells about it and explains UP just tried it on test. 173.164.133.26 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. Once you've found the source, feel free to add it. Dricherby (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

## June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pacific Air Lines may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• [[U.S. Forest Service]] operates a firefighting Air Tanker base here. The airport was served by [[Frontier Airlines (1950-1986)|Frontier Airlines] but is not now served by any airline.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you

 Copy Editor's Barnstar I award you this Copy Editor's Barnstar for insisting on clear, comprehensible, and grammatically correct articles. I do not usually give barnstars out, but you deserve this one following your recent work at Ministro Pistarini International Airport. Keep up the good work! Jetstreamer Talk 20:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

## July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gerald R. Ford International Airport may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• was completed in 2000, at a cost of about \$50 million. Runways 8R, 26L and runway 35 all have [[Instrument Landing System|ILS].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sioux Gateway Airport may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• County, Iowa]], United States.<ref name="FAA" /> It is seven miles 11 [[kilometre|km]]) south of [[Sioux City, Iowa|Sioux City]],<ref name="FAA" /> just west of [[Sergeant Bluff, Iowa|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

## Boeing 727 cruise speed

Hi Tim, I've noticed you reverted my edit at Boeing 727. I thought many readers might be unfamiliar with Mach as a unit of speed, and that it would be a good idea to convert the "max cruise speed" statement in mph and kn (as has been done in the next line about the typical cruise speed). Thus, the two items would also be made comparable. I just don't understand your claim that "727 doesn't cruise at 685 mph". I calculated it: Mach 0.9 is equivalent to 685 mph.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Foxy and Tim, thought I'd chime in. I'm a watcher of the B727 article and I think I can shed some light on this situation. Mach 0.9 is indeed 685 mph at sea level. However the speed of sound in an ideal gas goes as sqrt(T). At higher altitudes the temperature drops. So what happens is that the speed for a given mach number also drops. So if you wanted to convert a more realistic cruising speed, you'd use 611 mph, which is Mach 0.9 in a standard atmosphere at 30,000 ft. Ref. [1]. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sailsbystars, thank you very much for the clarification. Indeed, I'm not an expert on aircraft specifications, and just did a naiv conversion. Do you share my opinion that it's confusing to have maximum/typical cruise speed in two different units? If so, would you like to add an explanation (maybe in a footnote) to the article? Best regards.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Foxy. Thanks for the compliment, but I don't really consider myself an expert, just an enthusiastic amateur. Anyway, yes, I agree that it's confusing to use mach for one and speed for the other. Unfortunately, at this article, it's unclear how the typical cruise speed is calculated, since the "typical" speed given is pretty darn close to Mach 0.9. I'm pretty sure the actual typical cruise speed is more like 0.85 mach, so I think what we need to do first is find a reliable source with both numbers (max and typical cruise speeds). Then we can add conversions to/from Mach number and airspeed. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

## August 2013

Your recent editing history at Toledo Express Airport shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfw79 (talkcontribs) 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

## Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfw79 (talkcontribs) 16:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

## ANEW

I have reviewed the report filed again you at WP:ANEW. Both you and the other editor are edit warring at Toledo Express Airport. However, the other editor is at least making an effort to discuss the dispute on the article talk page. I don't see you contributing to that discussion. So, consider this a warning that if you continue to revert on the article without discussion and consensus, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention-- didn't know anyone had started anything on the talk page. Tim Zukas (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
In all fairness to you, the discussion was begun after the edit warring and the report at ANEW. I failed to notice the date/time stamp. If I had seen it, I would have issued both of you a warning, not just you. However, after that, I essentially gave the same advice to the other editor at ANEW itself. If you feel you were unfairly singled out, I can go back to ANEW and explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Tim Zukas, the other party has appended an additional complaint about you in the report at AN3. You may briefly reply there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

## Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Toledo Express_Airport". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

## Horseshoe Curve

It seems we have a difference in opinion on some of the revisions you made to the article. Note that this article was peer reviewed and also passed a FAC and, thus, found be "well-written" and "comprehensive" (per WP:FACR). Along with the unnecessary wording of some sections, here are some specific gripes:

• Not sure why the length of the curve nor which direction it ascends is not suitably for intro.
• How did you arrive at the number 2400 ft as the curve's length? Cited sources have 3485 ft.
• Traffic does not strictly refer to tonnage hauled.

I don't edit war, but I also don't like roughshod revisions to an FA, and would like to see this resolved in a reasonable manner. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What's a peer?
3485 feet is clearly wrong-- it's something like a 9-degree curve, so if it were 3485 ft long it would turn thru 387 degrees. The article has other errors that somebody found in some railfan publication and decided "Great! I got a source for this. Into the article it goes."
"Traffic" can mean train count or tonnage, or car count for that matter. The writer should tell the reader which one he's guessing at. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have linked that; I was referring to WP:Peer review. Horseshoe Curve is not a uniform curve, it flattens out in the middle (I couldn't find a reliable source, or would've included it, but the curve has two radii). No railfan publications were used for any technical details pertaining to the curve itself. The bit about being a 9-degree curve comes from The New York Times, surely not a railfan publication by any imagination. By the way, saying a reliable source is wrong and "correcting" information without a better source would be considered original research and reverted anyways. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Everyone agrees the curve is something like 9 degrees (part 9 deg, part 9 deg 15 min PRR used to say) which is why it's clearly not 3485 ft long, and clearly doesn't climb 66 ft. Looking at the online aerials the total angle is less than 220 deg. (210 deg might be close, tho.) Tim Zukas (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources, sources...without citations to reliable sources none of your "corrections" will remain, even if they are correct (see WP:RS). Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah-- that's the problem. You think your sources are reliable, even when they say the curve is 3485 ft long. You ought to be able to see that any such source has entertainment value only. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Except that between your word and verifiable sources, Wikipedia will take the verifiable source. If some statistics are wrong, replace them by finding a source that has the correct ones and citing it. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The only "source" that tries to give the actual length of the curve is the one-inch-to-400-feet PRR track chart, which none of us has. We can measure it off the online aerials and probably get it within a hundred feet or so-- certainly that will show the 3485 ft is wrong, if that's still not plain to you. Tim Zukas (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have located the problem, which based upon a misinterpretation of this source (the link in the article is dead on account of the government shutdown, but it is the same document). It seemed to imply that the portion between the two creeks was what was being measured (track charts indicate that that assumption was wrong).
Do you have a link to the "2010 NS track chart"? I would like to include the tonnage data, but am only succeeding in finding a 2008 track chart. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 20:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the live link. It says the curve is 2375 ft long which would be about right if it really curved thru 220 deg (but as you can see on the online aerials 200 degrees is more like it). Then elsewhere it says the curve is 0.66 mile long, which is wrong of course. It says it climbs 122 ft-- no one knows where they got that. Impossible to guess where they got 4.37% for the bridge across the curve; if you cut across the curve from the as-built track on the north side to the as-built track on the south side the grade will be 4.37% at some point, or maybe 6% at some other point. But if a huge bridge across the ravine were practical they could make the bridge 2.2% or 2.5% or whatever and increase the grade on the rest of the Altoona-Gallitzin climb to match that. (Not that they'd ever consider such a bridge.)
No, the 2010 NS chart is paper. As far as traffic goes, we can get some freight car counts from 1920s Rwy Age, and a book at home gives the total for 1943 I think it is. Dunno any place that gives tonnage handled back then, tho. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
(Ah-- so that's where the 3485 ft came from: 0.66 mile.) Tim Zukas (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The New York Times article also has 4.37%, but also mentioned that trains would've needed to be shortened from 125 cars to 43. I threw out the 122 ft elevation change fairly early on, as it was not all possible. If the USGS maps were available, I would check the elevations there. As for the angle (I'm getting anywhere from 205 to 215 depending on where I'm measuring), 220 is not as egregious of an error; barring any new sources, to change it would be original research (it could be that whoever came up with that number did not have the luxury of aerial photos). Is this 2008 track chart similar enough to the 2010 (same authors, publishers, page number) that I can model a citation on it and just update it for 2010? I note the track chart also indicates the curve as 9.4 degrees (9 degrees 24 minutes). Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

A 9.4-degree curve is 620 ft radius; you can measure for yourself on the online aerials and see the inside track is close to that while the outside track is 650+ ft. The PRR chart showed about half the curve 9-deg and half 9.25 deg.

"to change [220 deg] would be original research"

Original reseach would be going to the curve with a transit and measuring the actual angle. Nothing original about measuring online aerials that anyone else can measure for himself. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I've nailed down the source of the measurements for 2375 ft, 9° 15', 220°, 1.73% (91 ft/mi), as well as the elevation 1594 ft—all are on a big, wooden sign (now in the visitors center at the Curve) that was (according the sign) erected in 1940 by the National Youth Administration. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You know, if one did a little bit of research before making assumptions, one would have found this key for decoding track charts (which states that tonnage data is annual). Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
As long as we're making un-based assumptions, suppose it was for fiscal year 2008? Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Why pretend we know? If we knew what fiscal year NS used we still wouldn't know that was their tonnage year too.Tim Zukas (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It is one thing to disagree with certain statistics from verifiable sources, it is another to keep re-adding unencyclopedic prose as well as removing corrections that were needed (like to unit conversion templates) because of your haphazard editing. The {{Ref label}} you keep removing was meant to direct people to a useful footnote on the doubts of the source for the angle, rather than resorting to using weasel words (I thought "People say" was bad, "Legend says" is even worse). I've felt I've been accommodating in fixing errors as they've been pointed out, including some rephrasing for the sake of rephrasing, but now I'm starting to run out of patience. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't want to "weasel" so you tell folks the curve totals 220 degrees, knowing it doesn't. If you like, leave the 220 degrees out of the article-- but if you put it in, don't make the reader look at a footnote to learn the actual total is 200 degrees or so.
Show an example of "unencyclopedic prose", and show what you would replace it with, and tell what makes the latter "encyclopedic" and the former not. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
1. I already said why your method of using weasel words to indicate inaccuracies was unencyclopedic, as well as what I would do to replace it (a method which was proposed and used successfully in a previous FA I worked on).
2. "the PRR chart shows a grade of 1.45 percent while the newer NS chart says 1.34 percent." Per WP:LEAD, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I would not be opposed to putting in a general grade number (say "less than 1.5%" or "between 1 and 1.5%") and placing this with the other curve measurements, as well as mentioning the discrepancy (without mentioning the charts themselves other than in citations).
3. "The 1951 Special Instructions tell enginemen on daylight passenger trains to slow the train to allow passengers to see the Curve if other trains were blocking the view (allowed delay: three minutes)." I honestly don't what to make of this; if you could provide more info on the source, this could be relevant and useful as I'd been looking for official documentation of the rule (I'd still rewrite it so it was more businesslike per WP:TONE).
4. "3,000-horsepower (2,200 kW)... ...rounds the curve once each way daily." Caused a sentence to begin with a numeral (against MOS:NUMERAL), as well as created a two-sentence paragraph. Adding a "The" and deleting the line break easily fixes this.
There are others revisions I disagree with that, while not unencyclopedic, are somewhat informal, and others where random words and phrases are removed presumably to shorten sentences unnecessarily. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
"I already said why your method of using weasel words to indicate inaccuracies was unencyclopedic"
You didn't, of course-- that would be an impossible task, since no one knows what "unencyclopedic" means. Tim Zukas (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of the radii and degree conversions mentioned are not accurate to the nearest foot. By railroad (chord) definition, 9 degree curve is 637.3 ft radius. A delta angle 220 would make arc length 2447 and sum of station chords 2444 to the nearest foot. 9.25 degree (9 deg 15 min) is 620.1 radius. A delta angle 220 would make arc length 2381 ft and sum of station chords 2378 9.4 deg (9 deg 24 min) is 610.2 radius Those numbers change only slightly if you use the arc (highway) definition for degree of curve, to 636.620, 619.414, and 609.530 radii, and similar changes in length. If there are multiple radii in the curve, the length will be somewhere in between given values. BillHart93 (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

## Old airport diagram external links

Please see WP:ELPOINTS number 2. External links do not belong in body text. They belong in the external links section unless they are used as references. That is why I keep removing the links you've added to airport articles. They just don't belong there according to the guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)