User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 14

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #294

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. Thanks!

Please add all new material to the bottom of the page!

Toasted Peanut Butter and Tomato Sandwich - Deleted speedily

Why was this page deleted so quickly. I was still not done and would like to reopen this page and place a "hangon" so I can update the article and allow this to conform to Wiki standards and site additional relevant information. (Please leave comments in my Talk page) cheers, Seven

Replied to your talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

City of Everett

Alan, have you seen this diff? Should we even take this seriously? - BillCJ 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied (with a shake of my head) on the article and user's talk pages. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Unrelated, can you move Talk:H-3 Sea King to Talk:SH-3 Sea King? It got left behind when the article was moved several weeks ago, and I just now caught it. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Done! AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, thank you for your comments, although more kindness would have been appreciated. I did not realize my edit sounded so "irritated"; I certainly didn't feel any such emotion. Don't know why it comes across that way (but I agree, it does). I'll try to be aware of that in future edits. I would disagree with your assertion regarding the aircraft but only on personal grounds. When I said "significant" I suppose I was thinking actually "of significant interest" in an encyclopedia. I think its more likely for ship lovers to look up stories about boats than for flight lovers to look up aircraft. Again, just personal opinion. In terms of historical significance, there is of course no comparison. (And the 747 is a very special machine, isn't she?) Anyways, I'm considering clarifying that edit some, thanks. Eaglizard 13:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NP, sorry if I came across too strong. As for your ship lovers vs aircraft lovers, you probably haven't checked out the Aviation Wikiproject...it's actually one of the most active on the encyclopedia. I used to be active at ships, but they seem geared to military ones, rather than civilian, and at the time I was writing about steamships. But oh well...AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cedar Fire

I will certainly try to have a look at it sometime, although I'm doing some real world stuff for at least the next few hours. Also, I seem to remember an unfulfiled promise to take a look at the Seuvic, although it probably doesn't need me as it made GA without any real bother. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Custerwest/COI

Hey, so does is it more than just bad form to add COI links into a talk page? Two sections in a row on the Washita talk page got the link to his blog, but I couldn't decide if it was OK, or if I should remove them, and tell you about it re: his warning to quite inserting it. Cheers! Murderbike 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as worried about such COI stuff on a talk page...but certainly not in the article proper. Very often talk pages are used for discussing material that may not be suitable for an article. What bothers me more is Custerwest's blatant biases...I really prefer to see folks who are neutral editing such articles. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I won't worry about it then. Murderbike 22:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

2 articles to check

• LAPCAT - possible corpspam, company website is the only source.
• Bomber helicopter - It looks like it started out as a piece on the Lebanese Army's "invention" of the concept in the last skirmish with Israel, but has been expanded to include more. The whole thing still seems a bit contrived to me, especially the title. - BillCJ 18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll put the first one up for AfD (borderline speediable). The second one looks interesting, maybe merge to helicopter? The RTF oughta take a look at it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Desiree Horton

Welcome to the endless, frustrating battle over this barely notable helicopter pilot and part-time reporter. Thanks for your editing and your efforts. - Dravecky 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like a barrel of laughs. I stumbled on this due to the cat refinement I was doing, and was apalled at the condition of things. I have not intention of getting into a content dispute, but I fully intend to ensure that, as a minimum, Wikipeida's guidelines are upheld. We'll see how things go when the block lifts.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, user created a sock to evade the block. The sock is indef blocked, and Fred's block was restarted and extended. Will expire about this time on Friday. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, which block is that? We could go on like this indefinitely, but I have better things to do than waste my time with you. As for Dravecky, Desiree Horton has had nothing to do with this. Why do you find it necessary to denigrate her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredadamsxx (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is denegrating Ms. Horton. Just because we insist on our encyclopedia entries to be encyclopedic in tone and free of fancruft doesn't mean we're denegrating her. In addition, due to yet another sockpuppet by you, you've now earned yourself an indef block. Sorry dude...it's really too bad. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

MAFFS

I've taken a look at the article, and only made a few tiny edits to it, it's looking very good as of now! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Welcome! message

I want to thank you for your message of welcome (plus helpful hints).

You've noticed correctly that I am interested in aircraft. You might like to know that my interest runs wider than just aircraft and covers most defense affairs.

I am editor-in-chief of VNC Communication Consultants. Our prime focus is communication, of course, and as for subjects: defense and history are prime focus, politics and religion come right behind.

Lately I've found out WKP is also a great musical encyclopedia; great for the music lover and amateur (choir) singer I am in my spare time.

Thanks for inviting me in the aircraft group. As a Wikipedian, my contributions are modest, often just a matter of improving textual technicalities. But whenever I find the time, I'll share what knowledge I have with all users of this wonderful medium.

VNCCC 23:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't put down textual technicalities contibutions! Folks like you who help with that sort of thing are an immense help to the project. I almost always ask for copyedits on articles I write...when you're so deep in an article sometimes you just can't see the glaring typos your fat fingers create...at least I can't! AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

I've tried to warn the editor 3 times before, and now this. Gwen Gale 21:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I take this taunting as a continued personal attack. Cheers though :/ Gwen Gale 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

He may be calming down now. Hope so. Gwen Gale 01:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Think of it as one of those preparations of life...get used to this and you'll have no problems handling teenagers! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters in popular culture

Alan, you might want to check the creator of Helicopters in film & TV and Helicopters in Popular Culture. I've posted a note at [1], but an admin might have more weight with him. - BillCJ 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi I see you a you have Rotorwing in your blood, If you have anytime to check my page I would like to get any contribs or suggestions on User:DREWNIGG/Copters in Pop Culture I would appreciate it very much - thanx ANigg 06:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments left on the talk page of the draft. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Alan thanx for you in put on the content I'll make a note of it. In reference to your Helicopter ID's the movies listed under the Bell 206 such as Blue Thunder I was referring to the beginning of the Film with LAPD helicopters "Bell Jet Ranger" of course when I got down the list to Aerospatiale SA 342 Gazelle, then we'd talk about the big dog. Also would be true of "Santini Air" Bell Jet Ranger FYI CFI rotorcraft- helicopter out of VNY give me a little more credit that please  : D Tnax again ANigg 05:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not Familiar with Blackwater, I'm of the Older crew Pacific Shore Aviation & Orbic Helicopters. If your buying (a $200.00 hambergr.) I'm flying. : )

PS I didn't mean to imply anything on my aviation interest, I know there are a lot of folks here who mean well, but just don't general knowledge....like they say "You've seen 1 airplane movie, you've seen them all"ANigg 04:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Rob dosen'nt ring a bell, but I knew guys like Kevin Walton, John Neilson, & Mario Fatigotti. And $100.00 Burger sound good, I'll hit you upon it the next time I'm there, in fact the first time I get there (Never been KMHV) By the way can you show me or instruct me on how to in put a pic? I would like to add a few for User:DREWNIGG/Copters in Pop Culture thanx ANigg 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes

First, if you want 'professional english' you should pay attention in the simply fact that wiki is NOT made by professionists, nor nobody asked for. If you want professionists, then pay professionists. Too easy to have gratis workers and at the same time, they should be also 'professists'. And i am pretty sure that much of these issue is related to easy manner to attack me. It's always easy, right? Unsourced, bad written and so on. Greetings to all.

Second, i have not provided sources? Joe Baugher is not enough to you? Let's admit that someone not like me as contributor, be serious. And perhaps it will be, because you folks not deserve much of my time wasted by arrogance of the 'first' admin that comes to me and delete all. It's unaccettable.--Stefanomencarelli 19:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I went back and looked at your edits...I did not find a single proper source attached to any of the sentences. All I found were links to a personal website, http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_27.html. That does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. In addition, sources must be cited, preferrably in accordance with WP:CITET. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionable copyright pics

Alan, do you know the right tags to add to images to question their copyright status, esp in Commons? Check Image:Typhoon escorts Tu-95MS.jpg and Image:Typhoon2.jpg, if you can. They are tagged as PD, but the source is the RAF, which usually takea Crown Copyright tag. I also don't know if Crown Copyright pics can be on Commons, but we ought to make sure. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question, and I don't really know the answer, as I don't spend a lot of time at commons, except for uploading (as I'm doing right now...got to shoot several of the air tankers taking off from the Fox Firebase...check out the P-3A I added to the P-3 Orion article). You might check with Lar, as he's an admin over there as well, and is much more knowledgeable than I. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article CDF Aviation Management Program, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 22:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

On 9 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Modular Airborne FireFighting System, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 17:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Potential Steve Fossett Airplane.jpg

This image was actually a montage, not a simple copy. I'm not sure if you considered it as a derivative work, but if you did not, you should probably have a copyright expert review the image on that basis. I don't disagree with your decision to deleted it pending that review, but I think it should be done, if only as a case study. As it stands, the image also has OR problems, but one thing at a time. Dhaluza 01:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to take it to DRV, have at it, I have no problem with reviews of my decisions. Because I'm a semi-professional photographer, I'm fairly up on copyright law, and have even forced myself to wade through the U.S. Code, and quite honestly, I'm fully convinced that this is a blatant violation. Typically, a derivative work adds content, using outside content as an element in the final work. However, this was simply a grouping of three sequential copyrighted images, all from the same source. You can argue derivative work if you want, but I strongly doubt that such an argument would stand up in court. What particularly irked me was that the uploader claimed it was his work, and further this isn't the only time he's uploaded copyrighted works, claimed that they were his, and then "released" them to the public domain, and then been warned about it. A good-faith mistake is one thing, claiming ownership after a warning could be viewed by some as fraud, and I've warned the contributor to that affect. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it may qualify as a derivative work like a medley, but as you point out, in that case, the material would be from different sources. I wasn't thinking about DRV, I just wasn't sure about the proper status, and wanted to make sure this was not a knee-jerk reaction. I trust your judgment, and was not aware of the history. Dhaluza 00:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Cobra firefighters

Alan, nice pic of the CObra with the P-3. Btw, do you have any info on what the 209s are used for? Do they carry water buckets, or what? Anything you know would be efine, even if it's not verifiable. If you do have verifiable info, we might ought to put it in a section in the AH-1 article. - BillCJ 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do have some verifiable info...just haven't gotten to it yet. As you might have guessed, I'm on an aerial firefighting kick right now...several items in-work in my sandboxen, and in sandbox 4 there are a bunch of links, including some for Cobra info; feel free to data mine. As for the Cobras themselves, the USFS are spotters, and in place of the gun turret they have a FLIR camera. Basically it acts as a FAC. As for the Florida ones, I've seen info that the first ones used Bambi buckets, and subsequently at least one was fitted with internal tanks. I know there's been talk of Kern County (where Mojave is) getting some, but I believe, they've ulitmately decided on 205++ instead. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tankers?

Copy from my home page: "Hey, Bill, I came across your image of the B-26 air tanker over at Commons...as I've been working on a number of aerial firefighting articles (some done, some on my sandboxen), I was wondering if you had any other images of older air tankers in your collection? AKRadeckiSpeaketh"

What I have are the following:

1. Martin Mars
2. TBM
3. DC-6 (Conair conversion)
4. PBY
5. Canadair 215 (1970s) FWIW Bzuk 12:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

Cool! If you get the time to upload them to commons, I'll use them in the history section (which may become its own article). Many thanks in advance! AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi, thanks for the welcome, it was much appreciated. This reply is somewhat experimental.

When I work out how to make this stuff work I may join in with the Wiki Project Aircraft as you suggest but it does not appear to cover what I’m interested in. Which is why Wiki cant explain in simple terms to the layman how a wing produces lift.

(I am developing a few theories about why it is but I think I will keep my mouth shut until I’m a little less green).

RT

PS, I’m an amateur pilot (UK PPL/IMC & USA Airman’s Cert) a very active glider pilot (I have an LS8) and an active offshore yachtsman. My engineering degree specialised in fluid mechanics but that was 30 years ago. So you can see that a lot of my life has been spent trying to understand how to get more efficient lift in one way or another. Rolo Tamasi 00:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rolo...you're most welcome. For what it's worth, the way I explain it to my kids is that because there's lower pressure on top of the wing, the plane gets sucked up into the air. For a layman, that's really all that they need to know...high pressure on the bottom, low pressure on the top. They can understand that. The physics behind that is so much more complicated, since lift is a combination of forces with mulitple causes, that I wonder if a simple explanation is even possible, because invariably something will by necessity get left out in order to simplify it. And once you get it explained, you can boggle them more by explaining why horizontal stabs are often actually upside-down wings, and that propellers are actually wings, and that there's a bunch of tiny little wings inside each jet engine. It's certainly a lot of fun! Anyway, enjoy your time here, and if you need any help in figuring out the technical side of the wiki, let me know. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK Ive taken the plunge, what do you think? Wing#Science_of_wings Rolo Tamasi 19:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a good start, but I think you have one problem that needs to be addressed. You imply that the shape of the airfoil is irrelevant to creating lift. I beg to differ with you on that. You have left out one very crucial factor, and that is the fact that lift is also a function of the speed of the air over the wing. Lift has to be quantified...in otherwords, in layman's terms, lift is produced in "amounts", referred to as force. And, the faster the air flows over an airfoil, the more lift (as an amount) is created. To illustrate, let's look at two examples...a fat airfoil of a Piper Cub and a thin symmetric airfoil of an F-104. If you stuck an F-104's wing on a Cub, you'd never get off the ground. For a given airspeed, say 50 knots, a Cub's airfoil produces a fair amount of lift, allowing the plane to get off the ground. At that same airspeed, an F-104's airfoil, if stuck on the Cub, would hardly take any weight off the wheels. Same airspeed, same angle of incidence, but vastly different airfoil. So, airfoil shape has a big affect on how much lift is generated. On the other hand, the F-104 is designed to go very fast, and so doesn't need a thick airfoil that produces a large amount of lift at a slow airspeed (and consequently produces a large amount of induced drag, which, in layman's terms, is the result of redirecting some of the plane's forward energy into an upward direction). Another way of looking at it, for a layman, is to say that different airfoil shapes harvest different amounts of forward energy and convert them to upwards force. A Cub airfoil converts a lot of the forward energy to upwards force, resulting in a lot of lift at a slow airspeed, but also with a lot of drag (as the forward energy is lost in the equation). An F-104's airfoil converts very little of the airspeed into lift, and thus a) has much less drag and so it can go really fast, but b) has to go really fast just to get off the ground, which then requires a really big engine sucking a lot of jet fuel. It can be put in terms of a simple equation to show that these factors are irrevocably interrelated: airspeed + shape = amount of lift. Change one, and the rest of the equation is affected. Hope this helps! AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My objective was to provide a brief insight into the mechanism of lift for the layman. Really the just first paragraph, the others were aimed at removing obstacles to understanding the first that potentially may exist in the mind of the reader.

I could have droned on but I felt less is more. If it were to develop into a treatise covering wing loading matters, design considerations etc etc I feel it would be better in Lift (force). Rolo Tamasi 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Alan, I didn't know there was a wikipedia welcome wagon.  ;-) Thanks. You made my day with the first entry on my talk page. I joined about a month ago. So far, mostly been content with surfing around and making style, punc, and readability edits. Lately discovered (in myself) an odd need to look for "non-notable" bios and on-this-day entries. Even odder--there's a bunch of other people already doing the same thing. LOL. This place has the feel of something that I'll probably get VERY in to. Hult041956 21:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Got your reply on my Talk. Sure, I'll take you up on that offer for pointers to beginner biography tasks. Thanks again. Hult041956 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Child pornography?

Did you even read the comment I made about the page and the company NetClean before you deleted it? Yes its a company but as I said I think it's a great cause and they do what is right more then just wanna make as much money as possible. So my question to you is: Don't you want the world to be rid of all child pornography? And I would like you to explain why Microsoft can be on Wikipedia and this company can't? I'm on klassesmail@gmail.com since I'm not as active as you are on Wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klasse76 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am reposting my reply to what you posted on my talk page. Yes I did read the page and the comment. The page read like an advertisement (liberal use of the word "We" and "Our") and I marked it as such. Asking me "Don't you wan the world to be rid of all child pornography?" is attempting to appeal to my emotions and using the trite cliche "for the children". Sorry, I analyze things independently and make decisions trying to use the big picture as I see it. As I saw it, I saw a advert written by an account that only put that article up. My spidey sense tingled to the point of making my skin crawl. Now you are trying to compare NetClean to Microsoft. As I posted on the talk page of NetClean, see WP:CORP for the guidelines used for determining if a company should have an article. They are relatively low in my opinion with the biggest hurdle is having a secondary source reference your company. I could not find any and what I did find was PR pieces. Spryde 10:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Klasse76, do not remove non-vandalism comments from another user's talk page. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't give you the priviledge of doing that. Second, if you're so concerned, you can become active on Wikipedia. I don't generally respond to folks who leave their email addresses like you did. Now to the matter: we are an encyclopedia. Period. If the software you're talking about is really of the quality and has the notability to be included in an encyclopedia, then write a genuinely encyclopedic article about it. Except for those fruity things out there, Windows is on just about every computer made, is the software you're talking about that widely used? If not, then don't bring up MS Windows as a comparison. This has nothing to do with the "good" that the software does, it is solely a factor of whether the subject is encyclopedic and whether there are sufficient reliable sources that demonstrate that fact. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Deleted it since I didn't think it was relevant anymore, sorry. My company has installed the software on our computers which I'm very glad to say. I'm going to work on the page and see if I can set it up more neutral according to the guidelines that you provided. Thank you. --Klasse76 14:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, desert rat

The acknowledgments of appreciation for a job well done and the attaboys far outweigh the negative comments...that said, this guy gets off of his ban in a few hours, so we'll see where it goes... Once again, thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"you didn't deserve this kind of response from the "system"." Wait a minute...there is a SYSTEM to this?!? lol. Any backup on the talk page would be greatly appreciated, given the personal attacks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I could use some help on the talk page and the article page — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Red vs. Blue

No problem. Thanks for blocking the user; I was on my way to do so after cleaning up the mess of redirects, though in retrospect I probably should've blocked first. — TKD::Talk 17:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Electric helicopter

And that is why I discussed my further merger of the topic to Radio-controlled helicopter on the Talk:Helicopter page under the merger request. As far as I'm concerned, the electric helicopter article should've just died. It had no real basis in fact other than a UAS example and the mention of the R/C powered types. --Born2flie 22:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I guess I was out of sync. Sorry! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not totally. I was going to edit the edit summary and accidentally hit the enter button on the keyboard. Lo and behold, my previous edit summary was submitted. That was why I went to the Talk page to mention the merge to the other article. I figured at least that would explain to any editors why the section I said I was moving was no longer in place. So, not really you being out of sync as much as my keyboard (read: my error) keeping me from communicating effectively with the other editors. --Born2flie 17:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Jamaica POV

Alan, this one involves skin color, so if you wish to avoid such a contentious issue, it's OK. I need an admin's help with Jamaica, specifically this edit, among others, and the Talk:Jamaica page. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Jamaica. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Jamaica

I have no idea why you and CJBill are intent on suppressing the issue of skin complexion in Jamaican society, but it is entirely wrong for you to be doing so. I have not violated any policies. Nor is this OR. My contribution was completely deleted without warning or even the faintest effort at trying to improve what I had written - about subjects which are common knowledge for every Jamaican. At first I reverted because I suspected that my comments were being targeted by some racists. However, I decided to make the citations, which are of the very highest academic quality (i.e. qualified researchers in the fields of history, genetics, psychology and sociology). Yet, rather than attempt to mediate you have clearly stated that you disagree with my content, and you have then gone on to belittle my citations and then threatened me with being blocked and further removals. In my view this would be absolutely out of order and clear deviation from the impartial role of an admin.

P.S. I've just been looking at the Jamaica talk page and there are several references by Jamaicans to precisely this issue. Therefore, removing it entirely would be plain ridiculous - a bit like removing references to the high rates of African-American incarceration on the page about the USA (don't go getting any funny ideas:-).

Ackees 05:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond here with copies of my comments at the other locations. First, you didn't read my comments very well. I said, "I'm not getting involved in debating the actual issue here, I'm concerned about how you're handling the process, and you're running afoul of our policies." I'm not disagreeing at all with your content. I'm questioning if your content, the way it is presented, is appropriate in terms of our policies. I don't think you understand our original research (which we abreviate as "OR") policy very well. Just because something is "common knowledge" doesn't mean that you write about it from your personal common knowledge. It means you don't just look at a series of photographs and make your own analytical conclusion here from them. OR means that you don't present your own conclusions, even if there is evidence to support them. We only report here what others have concluded elsewhere. What you present you have to demonstrate that it has been presented by other sources...that means your conclusion, your point, has been presented by others and can be backed up by reliable, verifiable sources. That's why I asked if you would point me to the specific reference where someone else has stated that this is an issue. I don't care how dull or how controversial a subject, our process needs to be followed. As far as removing it, if I remove it the reason isn't that I disagree with your subject or your conclusions, it's only that you haven't demonstrated that other sources are stating your point, in other words, it would only be removed if it fails WP:V. So, again, I ask you: point me to the specific reference that gives your overall point. Thanks. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Alan, I have another admin issue for you, this one totally unrelated to above. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Golding&diff=158089011&oldid=158088002 this diff, User:Tom13014 has been repeatedly adding copyvio text over the course of the past week to the Bruce Golding article (the new Jamaican PM). User:Proper tea is theft has warned him twice for his actions today. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of...but, hey...you and Jamaica? You're straying, bro, almost as bad as me on this firefighting kick! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I lived there for 8 years - you can take the boy out of Jamaica, but you can't take Jamaica out of the man! Even had some fruit from Jamaica for breakfast! - BillCJ 18:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy check

Is this change to Air Methods correct? - BillCJ 18:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup...publicly owned (including my little chunk of stock in my 401(k) - trading on NASD under AIRM), and now that we've bought CJ Systems and their Helidyne division, we're the top dog... AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, cool! Just wanted to be sure - you know how these kinds of unexplained changes are! - BillCJ 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Saab 37 Viggen

Things seem to be getting a little heated on the talk page one editor in particular getting upset about some of the changes that are being made to his edits. It could do with an admin having a look before the situation gets out of hand. Thanks Nigel Ish 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh...our old friend Stefano...who likes to text dump and gets upset if anyone questions his grammar. Sigh. Keep in mind he was banned from it.wiki for good reason. I'll keep an eye on it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning (ThreeE)

Hello, Akradecki/archive. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning ThreeE's conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by "ThreeE" in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThreeE, where I would appreciate your participation and comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 12:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

DC-8 religion

Alan, I need some admin help conerning this diff, among others. Do what you think best on this. - BillCJ 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Connection Planning

Did this get deleted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.40.146 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did, as spam. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Connection planning is a term first coined in the late 1990s and is a strategic discipline used by many advertising and communication agencies. (Including Omnicom and the Publicis Groupe). It's not Spam. Using your logic you should delete "Account Planning" also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.114.30 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam indicators are more than just a subject. I could write a spam entry for the F-4 Phantom, or I can write a genuine encyclopedic article about it. The "article" on Connection planning was clearly spam...written in a style that clearly was promoting the concept if not companies involved. In addition, there were no references establishing notability. The only two external links were to subscription-only articles, which are not appropraite as references. You are always welcome to take it to deletion review, but I stand by my decision, and by the way, I'm not the only one who agrees...it was previously deleted by another admin as well. Sorry. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, I was in the middle of painstakingly recrafting it so it wasn't just a cut and paste from TBWA and Fallon sites (although they are a good place to start) and it got deleted as I was trying to do it. Am I allowed to create a new page from scratch? Connection or Connections planning is a term recognized in the industry and used by many agencies -although it is relatively new dicipline. I have several references and links which aren't paid articles. It isn't about "promoting the concept" either - take a look at media planning and account planning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.114.30 (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

MyBlackBook

Hey, you helped remove the delete tag from the MyBlackBook article back in August. Someone is trying to have it removed again citing it is spam, which it is not (over several references). Please visit the MyBlackBook article page and nominate to keep the article.

Thanks!Resorb 00:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's up for AfD, not CSD. I've removed the hangon tag, as that tag isn't appropriate for an AfD nom. I see you've spoken your piece on the AfD page, I'm going to remain neutral, mainly because I don't think you'd like my position if I gave it. Sorry. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert??

Hi. I recently edited the Air Force One article adding the TV show of '24' into Pop Culture and then you reverted it. Can I ask why? It is not vandalism and 24 has shown significant events of the show and series on an Air Force One aircraft such as the shoot down on Day 4.

Could you please leave a reply on my talk page. Thankyou very much. Aflumpire 06:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I understnad. I did sort of take it personally but now I get what you mean. Thanks. :) Aflumpire 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your inaccurate comments on my talk page and elsewhere

(repeating your comments on my talk page) Before you uncivilly and sarcastically chide someone about his comments on an AfD, you might want to actually read the references and be sure of your facts. The reference in the article for his visiting fellowship very curiously doesn't include his name, therefore leads me to suspect that the claim is bogus. So, if he really wasn't a visiting fellow, and he hasn't won any of the adult movie awards that you refer to, why is it we should keep this article? AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Before you post a boneheaded, uncivil comment like this one, you might just assume good faith or do a little checking for yourself. He's listed in other places, like this Oxford site,[2] as having an affiliation with the university. And UNESCO verifies the credential [3]. Perhaps the reason that the reference you "suspect" doesn't list him is because "visitng fellow" is a temporary appointment, that the reference was probably valid when added, but that his fellowship has now ended. The article does say "former," and the reference cited is current. Now go do the right thing, change your comment, and apologize for your uncivil, poorly informed, and condescending if not insulting inaccurate remarks. VivianDarkbloom 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC))
  • This whole thing started by your assertiong that Ellenbogen's status as a "visiting fellow" conferred notability. I questioned the source in the article, which didn't list him as such. You've come back with two references, but interestingly, neither lists him as a visiting fellow. The Oxford one merely lists him as an honorary member of a society there. The UNESCO one is merely an echo of a resume, hardly an independent source. So since you've yet to come up with a citation demonstrating that he was a visiting fellow, my comments stand.

Custerwest

Hey, so never having been involved in these before, I'm curious about what resolves a Request for Comments-User, specifically that of Custerwest. It seems to have just stagnated with no outcome whatsoever. Cheers! Murderbike 18:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the Custerwest debacle continues? Awesome. --HanzoHattori 19:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

1984

I was sitting in a United States Government building when I heard the story of President Reagan and his microphone blunder. We had a scientist visiting Russia at that time and her return was delayed by at least two weeks because of it. Can I ask your reasoning for removal of that fact? -- CarolSpears 02:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've not a clue of what you're talking about. I went back and reviewed my last 5 edits of 1984 ([4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]) and none of them have anything to do with Reagan. Maybe you have me confused with someone else? AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me be sorry. I assumed some things. Thanks for taking the time to set me right. Carol 05:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

2007

How do I tell Sinebot that I used the tilde? -- Carol 19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you use four in a row? That's the magic number. That signs your complete signature, and includes linking in your name (I notice that your name currently isn't linked). If you'd prefer not to sign that way, and don't want sinebot to sign for you, you can place the invisible template {{NoAutosign}} at the bottom of your user page, and then sinebot will know to not sign for you. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I can provide a screenshot of me doing this if necessary. I wonder if the Sockpuppet template managed to mangle things. I wanted that to point to carol Commons user page instead -- Carol 23:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

Ah, yes, that looks like that might be the problem. FWIW, having an account at commons does not make your account here at Wikipeida a sockpuppet. I've got an account there too, and merely provide a like on my user page. Might make things work smoother to do that. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. But I am a sockpuppet of the Commons user that I tried to point at. I am curious to see how long it takes to get a response from the "help me" template!!!! I might not be cut out to be a wikipedian. -- Carol 18:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

Custerwest

Hey, just to let ya know I just reverted a bunch of edits to Battle of Washita by Custerwest. He replaced cited material with his own material without trying in any way to achieve consensus on the talk page, so I felt it was fair to just blanket revert. If it's a problem, let me know. Thanks, Murderbike 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go take care of it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week, with detailed explanation on his talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd vandalism

Alan, user:76.201.20.253 made this edit] yesterday to Airwolf. I then checked the One Tree Hill page, and found he'd been changing the Exec Producer line there, and some character pages also. Per the One Tree Hill IMDB page, there is no mention of Donald Belasario as having created, or done anything else on, that show. This appears to be pure vandalism, but it's possible it's motivated by some Hollowood dispute somewhere. Can you see what you can do? Thanks. And no, I don't watch One Tree Hill, the show or the page! - 20:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just blocked him, and am rolling back a bunch of his edits. Good catch! AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

C-130A N116TG crash in France in 2000

Hi Alan -

Here is a link to a crash report...

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000906-1

Sub* Mark Sublette 21:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 21:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Covert use of forestry C-130s

I have no knowledge of any such usage at this time. I would not rule it out - I just don't have any primary data, nor have I heard about such usage.

Mark Sublette 21:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 21:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD closure of Capoeira in popular culture needs your signature

Hi Akradecki. Here you astutely closed an AfD but I couldn't find your signature. You may wish to add it. Thanks, EdJohnston 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up...shame on me! Corrected now. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting SS Republic (1853)

I don't understand why you reverted my edit to the SS Republic (1853). I used the WikiProject_Ships standard infobox as can be found here -->

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Tables

I cannot see a valid reason to have the page reverted to a less informative and less organized state.

MarVelo 02:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because you modified the code which caused the box to become malformated. The correct code, from the page you linked to :above, starts:

{{Infobox Class| |Image= |Image caption= |Country=

but your code began:

{|{{Infobox Ship Begin}} {{Infobox Ship Image |Ship image=

I have no problem with a more detailed infobox, but it needs to be done right. Just use the code as specified, don't modify it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

as per the page i linked it is stated as

{|{{Infobox Ship Begin}} {{Infobox Ship Image |Ship image=[[Image:No Photo Available.svg]] |Ship caption= }}

if i'm misunderstanding forgive me MarVelo 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're doing. I apologize, it looks like you are indeed using the code present. I'm not sure why it's coming up malformed, then. I'll go revert my revert to your edit, and try to figure out what the problem is. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fishy admin behavior

Alan, could you take a look at User talk:Roadcrusher? He added a Image:7379ERA.jpg questionable image to Boeing 737, which I've removed. The fishy part is that he was blocked on Monday for Copyvios, and unblocked by User:Navou a day late - no unblock reason given or stated. And he certainly hasn't learned his lesson. Could you look into this, and see what can be done? Thanks. - BillCJ 02:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Navou ^banter 02:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

2002 airtanker crashes

Right-o, will take a look at it, most likely tonight. I've only glanced over it, but it looks a very interesting article; and combined with your writing style, which I have to say is pretty good, it will certainly be a pleasure to read! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good at frist glance! - BillCJ 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal-slapping

User talk:Redsoxfreak000 - looks like mostly-vandalism account. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And he's dumb enough to revert my revert of his vandalism! Enjoy! - BillCJ 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Slapped! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! - !!!!

R66 Goat??

Alan, check out this diff and this one. Maybe it's true, but the move is certainly improper. Also, even if official, Robinson's pattern is to its submodels different names, so the page move is probably ill-advised anyway. - BillCJ 23:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow...Looks like you got things prtty well cleaned up...I deleted the redirect page. Goat?? Talk about a marketing nightmare! But, I guess if a llama can get so immortalized.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! "Marketing nightmare" is a great description! - BillCJ 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

F-22 vs. Typhoon

Alan, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#F-22/Typhoon fan-boy war, and see if there is anything you can do, or can recommend. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I'd offer you my first-born, but since I don't have one of those yet, will you take my cat's first-born? :) - BillCJ 05:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rad the discusion before you protect. Kitplane is wrong. See "No Paragraph". This is not going away. I have lots of subnets and lots of usernames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikzilla (talk • contribs) 06:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)