User talk:Ken keisel

Witteman-Barling Bomber discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Combining refs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit summaries

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

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

Requested move

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

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

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

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

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

Talkback

Hello, Ken keisel. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
Message added 04:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Miners Minors

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

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

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

Notice

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

Sarek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Ken, I wanted to apologize for taking quite a harsh tone with you there. I can see that you are not all that well-versed in how we work here and I know it can be a steep learning curve. You have made a good start by posting at article talk. The best thing is if you just post your proposed addition or change there, then try to convince other editors using good sources and the principles of our mission. Be friendly and polite, and remember that other editors will have their own sources and their own interpretations of policy. Be kind, erudite, thoughtful and patient and you will be able to contribute here. We really need folks like you who are smart and knowledgeable and can write. The hardest thing about editing here is the strain of working with other editors, but it can also be the most rewarding. Be nice to Sarek and I find he is one of the kindest and best admins we have. I'll be around if you need any help. Once again, sorry for the tone I took with you. --John (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Thank you. One problem I have is that there seems to be many styles for citing sources in articles. Each administrator seems to have their own personal style, and rejects the style of the others. I have been criticized for not using their style. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it shows the source, any style is acceptable. If the administrators wants to use different styles they are welcome to change it to suit them, but I wish they would stop trying the force one style on me over another. The other issue I have is that I often receive information on the current status of individual surviving aircraft. This information is not published (and not likely to be), but is very relevant to the article. I have no problem with having it tagged with {citation needed}, but certain editors are simply deleting my additions without discussion, for lack of a published reference. It is my understanding that deleting information that appears factual is discouraged. From what I've read on the Wikipedia rules page it should just be tagged. Am I correct? - Ken keisel (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy Vio Problem

Your addition to Yakovlev Yak-15 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, pp. 104–05--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your addition to Yak-17 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, pp. 110–11

Your addition to Yak-19 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, pp. 118–19

Your addition to Yakovlev Yak-25 (1947) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, pp. 127–28

Your addition to Yakovlev Yak-30 (1948) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, p. 128

Sturmvogel 66, in the future please identify yourself when you post a message. You can do this by typing the "~" key four times at the end of your post. Based on your message it does not appear that you are challanging the accuracy of the information you deleted, or the book that it was obtained from. Am I correct? If that is the case wouldn't the best approach be to simply re-edit it until you no longer consider it a violation? I don't see how it benefits these articles to delete 50% of their information simply because of how it was worded. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

He did sign on the first warning. Its your responsibility to make sure the text you add does not violate copyright, not other's jobs to clean up after you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see now that he did sign it near the top. Not where I'm used to seeing a signature. Perhaps he could have chosen a different format to make this posting. Regarding the text, I made significant changes to the original source text when I added my information, and I do not believe the material is in violation in any way, but as Sturmvogel 66 states he is currently doing a full re-write on the articles and will re-add the deleted information there seems little reason to argue the point. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don Chadwick

I just reverted all your recent edits, given that I could find no reason to change "Don" to "Gordon". Feel free to restore any accurate edits: I just couldn't tell which were which, so played it safe and restored the status quo.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you do a google search for "Gordon Chadwick" and "Herman Miller" you find about a dozen results. He is commonly known as Don Chadwick, but his full name is Gordon. Wikipedia naming convention specifies that we use the common name if it is overwhelmingly familiar, as is the case here. There isn't much information in the article. I suggest that your time would be better spent researching more material to add to it, rather than deleting what little is, which could be verified by a simple search. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ken, I hope you don't mind me interjecting here (I still have your talk page on my watch-list after leaving that other comment above). There might be some confusion here between Don Chadwick and Gordon Chadwick. The Gordon Chadwick that I get reference to when I Google as you suggested above might not be the Don Chadwick of the entry. I can't say for sure, but that Gordon Chadwick was a partner of George Nelson's in 1953. In that year Don Chadwick was 17 years old. I doubt he was a partner in an architectural firm. Is it possible they were related? Perhaps Don's name is Gordon, but he goes by Don specifically because there already was a notable architect/designer who had the name Gordon Chadwick. Anyway I hope that helps. Regarding the rest of the changes I think it would be helpful if they were sourced in some way. If they were I doubt Sarek would have reverted them. Remember that Don Chadwick falls under WP:BLP. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Gordon Chadwick is not the fellow who designed the Aeron Chair. That was Don Chadwick. Thank you for the assistance! - Ken keisel (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Typo fixing

I'm doing a swing through your contribution list looking for typos. To avoid swamping your watchlist, I'm not saving changes unless there's an actual spelling or markup issue to fix. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Gurley Novelty

Ken -

The page as you've created it lacks a references/ tag at the end; I undertook to add it but was prevented from doing so by a spam filter warning that indicated that one or more of the references you've supplied is on Wikipedia's blacklist. Please figure out which it is and remove it so that the article can be properly sourced. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

How do I find out which one is blacklisted? - Ken keisel (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dunno. Looks like someone did it for you. The article's pretty thin on references now, though. You probably need to find some non-spam ones to substitute. JohnInDC (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ken and John: Yeah I came across the article and thought it just needed a "reflist" to get it working right. When I added that, the software indicated that two of the refs were on the spam blacklists and disallowed a page save. I double checked the lists to make sure it wasn't an error and they are on the blacklists, so cannot be used as refs. I added tags instead. - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the ezinearticles one isn't considered a reliable source for WP's purposes -- it doesn't look like it has editorial control.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The final citation remaining was to a website selling old product, and I removed it as not a reliable source; the article has no sources at all now and needs some bolstering. JohnInDC (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

ezinearticles is blacklisted as spam on Wikipedia! I have also added a "notability" tag to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it using different references. Interesting that I didn't encounter any spam filters when I posted that reference. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It didn't trigger the spam filter because it wasn't an external link until Ahunt added the References section. At that point, the blacklist kicked in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That is my take on it too! The article is now a mess of duplicate refs and needs a serious clean-up and checking of references. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree - I'm not altogether confident in any of those refs and one or another reference tag probably should be restored to it in the meantime. JohnInDC (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As always, it helps to just do a little research. It only took one visit to Amazon to find what you two have been spending so much time bantering about. SarekOfVulcan (talk), I would be glad to spend some time working with you on how to do your own research. I've looked at your contributions, and it doesn't appear that you are familiar with adding anything that you have researched yourself. You are very good at deleting other's additions, but with a little time spent researching a subject you could be making valuable contributions that are more than just simply challanges and deletions. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you own that book, Ken? If not then how do you know what it says? (I took a quick look at the parts that Amazon allows you to see and didn't see anything about Gurley Novelty - am I mistaken about that?) JohnInDC (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(I would add that, indeed it does help to do a little research -- better still to do it before the article goes live and before it's tagged for poor references and raised as an issue at the RS Noticeboard.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

JohnInDC, you are indeed mistaken, again, and it's becoming a trend. Pages 68 through 81 are devoted to Gurley candles. I find it disturbing that you are challenging the contents of a book that, by your own admission, you don't own and haven't read. Regarding your second comment, again you are mistaken. It is yours, and every user's, responsibility to search for and add good references to articles, not just the person who wrote it. I'm noticing from your edit history that you seem to spend more time criticizing other's work on Wikipedia than making any practical contribution to the articles yourself. I would also remind you that it was you who insisted that Navy bandleader Anthony A. Mitchell was not notable under the Wikipedia notability guidelines, a position in which you were unanimously voted to be wrong. As I said, I see a trend appearing here that is very disturbing - Ken keisel (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)