User talk:Askari Mark/Archive 2

2007 Archive page

Pitot-static system rating

Hey! Would thanks for the cleanup on Pitot-static system, it is much appreciated! WOuld you mind rating the article? I an indifferent as to what it is rated, however I prefer not to rate articles that i am the main contributor too. If you would rather not, that is ok too. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sure, I'm willing to rate it ... depending on what Badbilltucker has to say regarding my query. However, the article is brand-spanking new, so let's give a week or so to stabilize.

That is probably a good idea. I also nominated it for main page in the Did you know section. It should have no problem getting on the page in a few days. DYK articles get a handfull of cleanup edits, and editors who know somethong on the topic willing to contribute. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiWings

Thanks! :-) - Aerobird 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazian Air Force

Thanks for working on the Abkhazian Air Force article. "Quasi-states" such as that have always been an odd interest of mine...

(Begins imagining the Sealand Air Force... ^_^ )

- Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been planning it for a while, actually ... other things have just kept getting in the way. Fortunately, today the kids had to stay home from school due to icy roads, which gave me a long enough block of time to put things together. When I'd originally started reformatting List of air forces into tables, I'd planned next to start working on the obscure air forces since I know more about them than most folks. (That's how I got involved with the Abkhazia article.) BTW, I actually corresponded with one of the Sealand guys a few years ago.... :D Askari Mark (Talk) 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Abkhazian Air Force, was selected for DYK!

On January 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abkhazian Air Force, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. :-) - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 00:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the DYK article! keep up the good work.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward2Jerry lavoie 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

deathcamps.org vs.death-camps.org in Einsatzgruppen

As an alternative, I could ask for the articles to be semi-protected as a way of either forcing the anons out into the open or driving them away from the articles. On the other hand, there are quite a few pages involved, and moreover I don't think at the moment the threshold for semi-protection has been reached. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If all they're doing is changing the code to a mirror site, I think it would be nearly impossible to get even one of the articles SP'd without the culprits also engaging in serious vandalism of the text itself. I would advise making a list of the affected articles and keeping a list of the IPs that are making the changes (for future identification of sockpuppets, if need be). Then just wait them out. After a few weeks with no further contesting of their changes, they'll figure their mission is accomplished and go on to something else. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Both death-camps.org and deathcamps.org links are being blacklisted and deleted due to copyright concerns and complaints to the Foundation.[1] Since it's impossible to edit any page with those links, I have taken the liberty of disabling the link above so your talk page won't lock up. I'm one of several people going around disabling these links on a rush basis. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template help

Okay, fixed.

(An aside: you are aware that air forces get {{Infobox Military Unit}}, right? Considering we've just added a large number of fields to it specifically for that reason, and everything. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Yes, I am aware of it ... but I hadn't spotted the reference to the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history until today as I was running the sound system for my daughter's 6th-grade talent show, which was last night. I have some comments on the current version and wanted to have an alternative to show ... as well as start learning something about template design. Best, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cat scheme

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hey Mark,

Regarding you comments on the proposed update to the WP:AIR categorisation scheme, I want to recap a few things to make sure that I'm set to move ahead with (another) 'formal' request for ratification.

My assessment: your comments 1, 3, and 4 seem to be resolved. (Regarding 4, I think it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than be spelled out in our cat scheme.) 6 is essentially unresolvable for the moment.

Regarding 5: are you proposing that the page Learjet be moved to Bombardier Learjet, that all Learjet aircraft since '91 have their titles changed from [[Learjet <model>]] to [[Bombardier Learjet <model>]], or both?

Rgarding 2: the definition of special-purpose aircraft, it seemed from WT:AIR that the best course of action was to rename the category Category:Special mission aircraft and use it for miscellaneous ones.

Also, what do you think of my comment that the AC-130 is more of a special mission aircraft than anything else? Karl Dickman ^talk 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe issues 1 and 3 have been appropriately addressed. WRT issue 4, you're right in that it will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but I would hope you'd include the three naming convention points as the WP:Air preference, so that we'll have fewer cases to deal with in the future. Those three points were

1. the nation of the designer/manufacturer;
2. if primarily license-manufactured by a foreign customer with little or no domestic use, then that nation; and
3. if the main original producer is later bought by another company, the name of the former should be used.

If so, this resolves issue 5 as well. (Ditto 6 in the future, if followed.) I was not proposing a rename, but rather raising the issue of consistency. "Learjet" was an American company; if it's now to be listed as a Canadian company, then the proper title is "Bombardier Learjet". According to point #3 of my aircraft article naming convention guideline schema above, the article title would remain "Learjet" (which is what I personally prefer) and categorized as "U.S.". However, if Bombardier Learjet were to introduce a brand new model, we'd have to rethink it as the Canadian TTa producer of Learjet models in its own right.

Regarding issue 2, I'm not sure there really was a consensus. I do prefer having a "Special Missions Aircraft" (or perhaps more accurately, an "Other Special Missions Aircraft") category as a subcategory of "Military aircraft"; I'm not sure whether the "Civilian aircraft" category should have one (which would require Military/Civilian in their names to distinguish them), since most of those would fit just as well under "Experimental aircraft" (if suitably defined).

As for the AC-130, I have no problem treating it as a "Special mission aircraft" — but then so are all the other "double-letter" variants. Frankly, I still feel uncomfortable lumping attack, COIN and gunship aircraft in with bombers. The latter are strategic and the former are tactical in role. I'd prefer to separate "Attack" back out and include gunships and other COIN aircraft in it. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:ADA logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:ADA logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:DEAD

Hey, you don't have to remove redlinks on dead-end pages anymore, because a bot will be doing this from now on. Keep up the good work! Salad Days 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that bot today. How often do you plan to run it?

I don't know if you're the person to do this, but it would also be nice whenever these lists are updated, that working redirect pages and that deleted pages which have been protected against recreation be automatically skipped. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not my bot, but I'm told it will be run once per day. The reason that there are redirects in the list is because they have been either moved, renamed, or redirected to good articles since the page was generated; there were no redirects when the page was created. Deleted articles containing nothing but the protected page template are technically dead-ends, since they contain no links outside of the template. When I update the page next time, I may choose to filter out results which already contain templates, but for the moment it's not a big deal, as there are only a few of them and they can be easily removed. Salad Days 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Flanker codenames

Well, I had just changed them to match the ones in the various articles...so they're all wrong then?

Su-47 = guess next time I'll look to see if something already exsists further down the page. ;-)

- Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 03:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the articles have a lot of problems. I've gone through the MiG articles and corrected a lot of these, but not the Sukhoi articles. Everything in the List of military aircraft of the Soviet Union and the CIS is correct (at least until my final correction was added back whenever). I went through each and every entry correcting and adding, and verified every datum in the list. In particular, one thing I made sure of was that the NATO code names were all correct (or as correct as available open-source information makes possible). BTW, I'm correcting and adding to the List of air forces as I go, but I'm likewise afraid I haven't followed through on the relevant articles. :( Askari Mark (Talk) 04:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

Heyo, thanks for the comment! I replied, basically saying that any smaller issues with earlier commands are not really that notable (and individual ones, like the rumors that Shelton didn't want to promote him) are included where sourceable. And as for why he was passed up, there's no source that can possibly give a reason because no reason was ever given. I've included the predominant assumption/rumor, but no reason that can be stated was given. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, and double-sourced your citation needed statement, to make it quite clear it was a heavily shared opinion. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I know that was not the reason given... Again, there was no reason given, that's why there's no reason given in the article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've made a proposal on the FAC, if you'll check it out. Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• And I've added the criticism section, I hope it meets with your request. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for keeping an even-head despite my douchebaggery. I had been having a bad couple of days and seeing my work get shot down a bit made me go off a bit, as you likely noticed. :p I'll try to work the existing criticism into the general article as per other requests and I'll find what I can on the Waco incident. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You're doing good, Staxringold, really! I think this may well prove one of the best bios on Wikipedia and it will be mostly to the credit of your hard work! And it's never easy writing outside of one biases — not many people nowadays are good at giving a fair rendering of "the other side's" POV. It's a sad commentary on the quality of modern American public discourse, I'm afraid, that even to for a moment entertain a negative thought about one's candidate is considered, at best, lèse majesté and at worst, simply "handing ammo to the enemy." Because of this, our leaders are portrayed in strictly pale, sophmoric, blasé terms.

It's especially hard to capture someone's "human-ness" in an encyclopedic article. Although it's "original research" (unless you can find a rare source that might provide the same insight), let me share with you a little of what was behind Gen. Clark's issues with the NATO ambassadors. First of all, you have to understand that SACEUR is quite a full-time job; so is running a war. The former is mostly politics, while the latter is beans, bullets and bloodshed. In WWII, Eisenhower took the responsibility for handling the worst of the politics so that his generals could focus on their combat jobs. Wes got both. Yes, he wanted it, but some of the opposition to his appointment was just that. He'd gotten along well with the ambassadorial-level politics as SACEUR, which helped him. However, the way the war was executed politically was horrible. Every day there was a committee to approve the next day's targeting list. The proposed list was submitted according to perceived military need, but the government of each nation contributing forces had a veto. What this meant in practice was that a factory owned (or mostly owned) by, say, a Greek company (especially a notable one) would be vetoed by the Greek representative. Ditto the Italian, French, etc., reps. That gives you an idea of the level of frustration Wes had to deal with on a daily basis. Imagine Gen. Bradley during WWII having to suffer Montgomery, De Gaulle, and the representatives of the Polish, Czech, etc., governments in exile being able to veto the strategic bombing and tactical airstrikes every day. Wes has never suffered fools gladly, so you can imagine how hard it was sometimes resisting the urge to shoot someone. Being hamstrung and straightjacketed is not way to fight a war. Add to that the fact that Wes is one of those people to whom it seems most folks take either a strong liking to or a strong disliking to and few in between, and it's hard to imagine a scenario other than the "perfect storm". Now, isn't that a more interesting insight into the man than his medals? Askari Mark (Talk) 21:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Heh, absolutely, but I can only include what I can source (or, as you said, it would be original research). I've heavily rewritten the article to try and meet your and other needs, I hope you'll stop by the FAC and leave new comments! Thanks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-Action Recordings

Yes this article needs clean up. That is why I added the importance tag. :) It seems no one has found any references - I certainly coundn't. Time to prod. Obina 22:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK.

Domenico Selvo

Hey, Askari Mark. I'm currently trying to bring this article from the near-stub that it was a few days ago to GA status if not FA. I've been reading around about the wikification of years and I don't seem to find any consensus. In some FAs I've found, there are even some places where dates are wikified and other places where they are not. At the moment, my article (which is in its early adolescent stage) has a scattering just like that. I wonder if you could give me a hand in figuring this out. Thanks a lot. JHMM13 (T | C) 01:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, JHMM13! I took a look at your article and it looks like you've got a good start, especially for such a tough subject. Let me first say that the best strategy for developing a GA or FA article is to get know the style guidelines of Wikiprojects whose members would be the most likely to review it — and to help you get there. I would suggest WikiProject History (WP:WPH) and WikiProject Former countries (WP:WPFC).

Regarding wikilinking dates, at the moment there's some serious debate going on about what dates should or should not be linked, since it sometimes seems to go at cross-purposes. (Cf. this debate, for instance.) Please also note that GA and FA standards have been "tightening up" over the last year, so older articles may not be up to snuff. Here's my advice on the date-linking issue:

• Per WP:DATE as it currently stands, the first priority is to link full dates (e.g., "February 4, 2007") to enable user preferences for how they want the date displayed, as there are several possibilities ("4 February 2007", "2007-02-04", etc.). My example would be coded [[February 4]], [[2007]]. Don't link month/year combinations ("February 2007") or stand-alone dates without the year ("... as of February 4, the ...").

• Although WP:DATE encourages wikilinking stand-alone years, I see no purpose in it — unless it should tie into a "year in xyz" timeline page. For the time being, I wouldn't suggest adding those. Your article wouldn't be "docked" for it anyway.

I hope this advice helps! Best wishes, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I'll be taking your suggestions into consideration. JHMM13 (T | C) 18:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WP Aircraft Category

I removed the category because it was improperly placed on the main page. These types of categories belong on the talk page. This article is in the category Category:WikiProject Aircraft articles. Category:WikiProject Aircraft is for articles relating to the project itself. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

Regardless of what eventually happens to the article (and I think our combined power can get it featured eventually... :) ) I just wanted to say thanks for sticking by your comments throughout the FAC rather than just letting them sit there as sometimes happen. You've really engaged and made the article better, so I felt like you deserved a little:

		The Reviewers Award
		I, Staxringold, award you this Reviewers Award for your consistent responses in the 2nd featured article candidacy of Wesley Clark that has made the article quality grow in leaps and bounds! Staxringold talkcontribs 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

4th generation jet fighter - seems to have turned into a cold war zone

Hello there

I have been recommended by User:David Kernow to contact you regarding an issue with article 4th generation jet fighter. Please see orginal review request.
Could you please see the history of the artice 4th generation jet fighter and review the article itself with your good aircraft knowledge. It seems to have a lot of disputes between editors of Indian and Pakistani origins. I'm sure its not too serious, but such disputes are still undesirable on an encyclopidic article.

Many thanks -- Ash sul 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Ash sul. Sorry I haven't responded sooner, but I've been out of town on a business trip. I'll try to take a look at this today, but my wife is sick, so depending on how much our kids help out, I may have minimal time. Askari Mark (Talk) 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark

Firstly, I hope your missus gets better very soon. I very much look forward to getting your thought on this whole thing. 'Coz frankly, (in my opinion) encyclopidia should be used to echo national pride and personal opinions.

Many thanks. -- Ash sul 22:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dude,

Sorry to bug you again, but I'm getting very furstrated with certain users (especially of Indian origin using wikipedia articles to promote their countries progression agenda. This 4th generation jet fighter article is still being used as a platform to promote Indian "advancement over other nations", especially when it comes to 4.5th and 5th generation aircrafts.

For example, Russia has offered India to participate in a 5th generation fighter project earlier this year and deal has reportedly been signed. Since then, our Indian editors have taken this opportunity to link this to a near-complete project, the PAK FA, going as far as calling the PAK FA a joint Indo-Russian project.

Now, my argumennt is that based on vague news reports, an encyclopedic article must never be edited. India-Russia 5th generation fighter programme may very well be a new project other than the PAK FA. The point is that, until an official programme pronouncement, we just don't know!

Similiar trends are visible in other indian project articles such as HAL Tejas, where Indian editors gone as far as sometimes claiming th aircraft "better than F-16s".

As you are quite a knowledgeable person in this field, I was wondering if you would mind reviewing this issue.

Many thanks -- Ash sul 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark once again

Hey Askari Mask, just thought you'd like to know that the FAC for Wesley Clark was nicely reset by Raul, given all the work put into it. I'd appreciate you stopping by! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stax! I'm not ignoring you. Unfortunately, since I returned from my business trip, I've had to take care of a sick wife. I'll stop by as soon as I can get a chance. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks very much! Hope your wife gets better soon, stop by whenever you can. I believe we dealt with your issues in the previous FAC, the only objections now are a fixed one about adding a few links to external links and a holdout guy who refuses to accept that using a campaign sign to display the campaign is already accepted fair use already used in modern political FAs (Barack Obama). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes ... my wife is getting better. So much so she tried installing something on the home computer Sunday and "broke" Windows. * Sigh * Hopefully it will come back from the shop soon. As for the pic, try inviting/challenging him to offer a mutually agreeable alternative. Anyone who's got the time to maintain a single point of criticism like that ought to have the time to make such a small contribution. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Problem is his alternative is just removing it. Regardless, Barack Obama is a featured article using more than one campaign logo in exactly this way, and if this isn't fair use then {{logo}} shouldn't exist. Hope to see ya back in action soon! Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just got the first of the freely released images I'm getting from WesPAC. This is a nice shot of his announcement speech in 2004. Can't wait til you can get online. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Avoiding redirect"

Hi. Regarding this edit.[2] Changing the name of HS in text is fine, but there is no need to bypass redirects. An edit to change it is thousands of times (I think I'm quoting right) harder on the servers than a redirect. Mark83 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Mark. I was responding to the request at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Hawker Siddeley Harrier - assistance required". Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Hey, if you want to go ahead, no problem with me, because I understand the urge to have things pointing directly to the relevant article (I have felt the need to fix redirects in past). I just thought I'd let you know the official policy. Best regards. Mark83 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Again, hope your wife is feeling alright and your computer is too! Just thought I'd let you know that the 2nd time around for the Wesley Clark FAC was very successful, and the article was just promoted! Sorry you couldn't participate, wanted to say thanks again for all the work you put in the first time around! Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• How's life treating ya'? I realize it's odd to have a casual converation through WP, just noticed from your Contribution times that you're online right now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My wife is okay and I got my home computer back from the shop. Just killing some time between family interruptions. Had to remove and reload Windows, followed by a few other programs and I'm about half finished with that. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble with email - I can't manage to get my old email and address files reintegrated. After over an hour with my ISP's help desk, I was put on hold while he consulted with Microsoft ... and the line got dropped. I'll have to try again tomorrow.

Congratulations on getting WC promoted! You've certainly earned it with all your hard work. What's next on your agenda? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yikes. Sounds roughly like your computer exploded, essentially. Reloading the OS is never fun. As for what's next, I dunno. Thusfar I've just taken up whatever article struck my fancy. I failed with Elisha Cuthbert and Taylor Hicks, but generally I'm successful (Cuthbert got GA status, at least). Any ideas? Wanna collaborate on something? :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CSD.A5

Hi, I notice you've tagged a few articles as speedy deletion candidates because they were transwikied. From the text of WP:CSD#A5, it seems that only articles that have been discussed at an AFD where the outcome was to transwiki may be speedy-deleted after transwikification is complete. In the two cases I noticed (Salibi and Sale/Repurchase agreements), no such discussion had taken place. I just wanted to let you know for future reference. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've been going straight to the deletion templates table, which reads merely "Transwikification completed". That and the "Articles for Deletion (et al)" in the CSD A5 description left me with a mistaken impression. I've proposed to clarify that issue and will undo my mistakes. Sorry for the bother, but thanks for catching it (and educating me further). Askari Mark (Talk) 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The short description in the table is indeed misleading. I wouldn't have even paid any mind to the articles except that it was the first time I'd encountered an A5 notice and was compelled to find out what it was. -- Black Falcon 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that you prodded both articles rather than tagging them for AfD. Shouldn't they go through AfD? I'm a bit confused here. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Salibi article was actually previously prodded by another user and I prodded the Sale/Repurchase agreements article. Per WP:CSD, contested speedy-deletion candidates can still be prodded (or AfD'd if the editor thinks it's a controversial case). I hope this clarifies the issue. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Medal

Wow! Thanks very much! Couldn't have gotten it there without your detailed proofreading and constant presence for advice. So how are things going now? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Just got back from a short trip to Houston with the family. Among other things, my wife, kids, and 79-year-old father-in-law got to see their first rodeo. Tomorrow I return to work to learn what new crises have arisen during my brief absence. I know there are two impending major projects due to start soon, but that doesn't mean there won't be others. I suspect I will continue only to manage a light touch on Wikipedia through the end of the month. Haven't decided what to work on next, but I'm starting to become embarassed over my growing backlog list, so I may have to clear off a couple. How about you ... aren't you supposed to be off enjoying Spring Break? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hah, UConn's break is a week off of the standard one, so I just got back... From sitting in my bed trying to decompress a bit. Dunno' what project to take up. I'm trying to go a different route, but it'll be tough to pick a non television, film, education, or biography article... I was thinking about Texas hold'em, but that's waaay too daunting a task. My userpage is all spiffy now, added your award and a service medal I didn't know existed, plus finally made my ribbons fruit salad below the medals themselves. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Flags on the Most Produced Aircraft Page

Yes, but we don't use the 48-star American flag just because the aircraft in question happened to be produced during a particular time period. As you've got a hell of a lot of av-related edits, and I'm just an enthusiast, I'll defer to your judgment, but I just wanted to kick up a bit of fuss first. KristoferM 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that (fuss is good), but then I'd also argue that Nazi Germany is a different country from the modern Germany. Moreover, I've found that modern Germans tend to get a bit queasy (at best) over anything that "rehabilitates" stuff from the Nazi era. We regularly get them AfD'ing articles about that era just because they think there's already too many articles about the Nazis already. I can understand that. I still remember the reaction of a German exchange student after watching "Hogan's Heroes" for the first time. Anyhow, keep on contributing and don't be afraid to revert me when I'm wrong. (Rarely.) :-) Askari Mark (Talk) 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'd have to say that it is a good thing that modern Germans have a sense of shame regarding the Nazi period. It would be disturbing if they didn't. I kind of figured that was the rationale for the use of the Nazi flag, but I figured, 'be bold' and all. How did said student react to "Hogan's Heroes"? KristoferM 04:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He was most distraught and thought it abominable that the show made light of Nazis and joked about them. He felt the Nazis were too evil to be used even as the butt of humor, much less styled as endearing clowns (Sgt. Schultz & Col. Klink). When I pointed out that it was the first popular post-war WWII show in the US which didn't portray all Germans as evil Nazis, well, he just couldn't make that compute. I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you to learn that the German neo-Nazis are mostly from East Germany; as communists, they were told it was the West Germans who were Nazis and responsible for all that evil. Ironically, that's now their mode of rebellion against both East and West. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

death-camps.org v. deathcamps.org

Did we have a conversation about this some time in the past? I recall asking somebody about it. Can you remind me why the folks who go about making this change are so concerned about it? --Rrburke^(talk) 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most of it was on a user talk page, but I forget whose. The tail end of it is [[User talk:Askari Mark#deathcamps.orgvs. death-camps.org in Einsatzgruppen|here]]. You had posted about an edit war over these two sites. The one w/o a hyphen was the original site of a group researching info on the Nazi death camps, but the group suffered a "civil war" over the introduction of some fraudulent material; the one with the hyphen was a mirror of that (but w/o the bad material). A friend of the "fuehrer" of the old group has been going around censoring links to the mirror site. You were wondering which to use and whether it would be necessary to go back and fix all his changes. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Marks statements are completley untrue and false. The site with the hyphen is a counterfeit website in violation of corpyright. This is validated by a simple WHOIS on both domain names. Wikiepedia DOES not support copyright violations. So why would you promote fraudulent websites or suggest others do? -The Genuine ARC team.

To the anon signing as "The Genuine ARC team":

• First, do not add hidden text or spam as it is considered vandalism; so is altering another editor's posting, as you did here earlier. If you do not understand Wikipedia's rules (or care to follow them), then you should not be posting here.
• Second, my statements were not "completely untrue and false"; they were based on research and available online commentary from your side and your opponents. If you have a problem with their version, take it up with them (as I am not a member of either group).
• Third, if you had bothered to read closely what I actually wrote, you would have seen that I did not promote either website. Don't make accusations based on no evidence. Ask first, don't assume.
• Fourth, Wikipedia encourages taking a non-point-of-view (NPOV) position, so an edit war over links to either of two feuding websites naturally encourages responsible editors to try and find out more about what they've stumbled into.
• Fifth, don't jump into others' conversations making assumptions when you've never read the original discussion.
• Sixth, you shouldn't bring your outside feuds with other outsiders to Wikipedia; we're an encyclopedia, not a debate forum or a court. Your feud is non-notable to us, only an uninteresting problematic issue that we've had to deal with.
  Askari Mark (Talk) 19:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

JFYI, the man behind "the genuine arc team" is already known for spamming wiki, see the updates at http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/11/heart-as-educational-resource.html --Sergey Romanov 12:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Both death-camps.org and deathcamps.org links are being blacklisted and deleted due to copyright concerns and complaints to the Foundation.[3] Since it's impossible to edit any page with those links, I have taken the liberty of disabling the link above so your talk page won't lock up. I'm one of several people going around disabling these links on a rush basis. -- A. B. ^(talk) 21:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, A. B.. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Promotion of Counterfeit ARC website

Mark, There is no feud. Please check whois.net or ICANN, or Network Solutions for validation of the Genuine ARC website. When you do this you will realize that the genuine ARC website can only be found at deathcamps.org and that the hyphenated site is a counterfeit and in violation of our copyright. Wikipedia does not encourage copyright violation and the proof of his is clearly found at the WHOIS authorities I've listed above.

We appreciate your understanding in this matter. The Genunie ARC team. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.161.15 (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

The above is, of course, incorrect. Chris Webb doesn't own any copyrights on ARC materials just by being the owner of the deathcamps.org domain. In fact, he had been repeatedly asked to remove the copyrighted materials by one of the contributors - deathcamps.org/websites/jmain.htm (cf. with death-camps.org/websites/jmain.htm )

Therefore, it is the current deathcamps.org site which contains stolen material.

--Sergey Romanov 12:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User 141.157.161.15 Your personal issues are not a matter for Wikipedia. Since it is apparent from your user history that you participate in Wikipedia only to assert your position on this issue, you really do not belong on Wikipedia. If you believe you have a copyright violation issue with the other site's owner(s), then you need to take it up with them through due process in court, not vandalizing Wikipedia with your POV and making untrue accusations about its editors. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Sergey. That is pretty much what I had discovered during my own independent research. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, by allowing a Wiki User to violate Wiki Copyright regulations you are acting in Collusion with the vandal.

You are well aware of the WHOIS.net and copyright information for the genuin ARC www.deathcamps.org and the attempts by Sergey Romanov to vandalize and promote the counterfeit copy with the hypen.

You are being formally requested to cease and desist from this behaviour, this is in violation of Wiki Rules. You should know better.

-The Genuine ARC team

You cannot "formally" give a cease and desist notice like this. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

... especially since I haven't done anything to cease and desist from. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

the d.org business

...is now being discussed by the admins here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats.2C_counterfeit_websites.2C_oh_my.21

--Sergey Romanov 20:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Domenico Selvo/archive1

A few months ago, you helped me out in getting this article started. Now I think it is close to ready for FA nomination. If you could help me out in this peer review before I go to FAC, I would be eternally grateful. Thank you very much, JHMM13 09:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your suggestions in this peer review. Thanks a lot for reviewing it, and I can't wait to see any further suggestions you might have if you feel like spending the time on it :-). I think now I have an adequate number of reviews to take to FA (naturally after I've satisfied the suggestions of all reviewers!!). If you wish to wait till it gets to there, I'll be sure to drop you a line letting you know it's up. Thanks again, JHMM13 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded again. Thanks again :-D JHMM13 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued help in this FA drive! I've made the requested changes to the article and if you have any other concerns or suggestions, please please please let me know and I'll try to figure out where I went wrong. Thanks also for being bold and changing the article on your own...it's our article, after all! :-D JHMM13 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Military Aircraft Design Companies

On a totally unrelated note, I was having a look at your sandbox and I noticed what appears to be an inconsistency regarding the nationality of certain companies. For example, in the case of Aero Vodochody you note that it is from both Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic. For Antonov you note that it is from both the Soviet Union and the Ukraine. However, in the case of Focke-Achgelis you only list Germany as the nationality with the current German flag. However, the company, as you note, went out of business in 1945. Shouldn't the flag shown here be the Nazi flag as it was the official flag of Germany at the time? Same question for companies like Hamburger Flugzeugbau that did exist post-war and perhaps should have both the Nazi flag and the current German flag. Obviously you aren't done with this article yet, so I know I'm nit-picking at something in-progress, but I'm just wondering. Thanks, JHMM13 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not nitpicking — it's an issue I'm still wrestling with. Originally, I'd intended to only have multiple flags for multinational companies. Then, to give more historical insight, I put in previous national flags. The problem is that for some German companies I was faced with including the German Imperial, Weimar, Nazi, and FRG flags — and almost all of the US companies would need more than one flag as well. (There's also the side issue of Germans getting tired of seeing Nazi flags everywhere.) I may still go back and add Nazi flags for those firms that went extinct at the end of WWII; I haven't decided. Currently, I'm leaning toward including earlier flags only where the former entity "disintegrated": Soviet Union -> Russia, Ukraine, etc.; Czechoslovakia -> Czech Republic and Slovakia; Yugoslavia -> Serbia, etc.; Austro-Hungarian Empire -> its constituents; etc. My overall intent is to provide a reference list that helps a reader back out the historical track of companies' evolving names (at least for companies designing and producing the aircraft found in historical air forces). Any thoughts? Askari Mark (Talk) 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can minimize this problem by having two possibilities: original nationality and current nationality. This would help people get an idea for the context in which the company was founded and most likely grew and then the context that it is now in. This obviously becomes important for companies that have existed in the same physical place, but in many different countries. It also allows for a brief visual explanation of a company that might have taken a similar path as Halliburton that is slowly moving its headquarters (and possibly nationality?) overseas. For a company like that, you could say...Original nationality: US. Current nationality: East Timor. The problem I see with this approach, though, is that companies that have always existed in the US might have two American flags causing clutter in the list. I'm sure you could find a way around this, though. Let me know what you think. JHMM13 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Representing the original and "final" nationality is basically the approach I'm taking at present. The question becomes something like "Is Nazi Germany (or Imperial Germany, etc.) a different country from the modern Germany – at least enough that simply identifying a company as 'German' is insufficient?" Germany can be said to have "swelled and shrunk" repeatedly over the 20th century, and was temporarily split into the BRD and DDR (but effectively under foreign occupation); the USSR was shattered. Anyhow, that's my current thinking and I'm sticking to it ... or not. :P That's part of why it's still in my sandbox. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As a German citizen, I can tell you that Germans celebrate their form of "Independence Day" on October 3 which in 1990 was the formal day of unification between East and West (Tag der deutschen Einheit or Day of German Reunification). The concept of Germany being a fully existing country was sort of stunted before this, oddly enough. The West Germans felt the country wasn't complete and I don't believe they had a constitution until after reunification. Naturally this is partially ridiculous as West Germany was, in fact, a country that became officially sovereign in 1949 (I believe on May 5) and East Germany was its own country that celebrated its own Tag der Republik on October 7. I think in order to be as accurate as possible, you should include the official name and flag of the country in which it was initially founded because separating government switch-ups into collapses and splits and so on is a lot less scientific that it should be, and it's not very easy. East Germany was incorporated into West Germany, but West Germany is now a new country with East Germany called Germany. Whenever it is referred to in the past, it is generally called West Germany. Nazi Germany was called Germany, but it was a separate nation. You shouldn't worry about offending the Germans around here. It's all about getting the facts straight and it's very important to note what government a company was started under in 1937 as opposed to 1967 as opposed to 1997. They were all different countries in the same way that the USSR is not Russia :-D. I hope I've helped, JHMM13 16:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased to take your word for it. Maybe the attitude is something of a "generational" issue? I still encounter what I noted above, and we've had Germans AfD'ing articles just because they address some military-related topic that addresses aspects of the Nazi regime, if only peripherally. Recently, the article Waffenfarbe was AfD'd (ostensibly because there were too many military articles).

That aside, I take it that you concur with a "founded-and-ended/current" approach with the flags. To wit, if a German company was founded during the imperial era and still exists, it should feature the imperial and republican flags (but not the Weimar or Nazi), correct? Also, the Weimar flag icon appears identical to the modern flag icon; are they indeed the same? Vielen Dank'! Askari Mark (Talk) 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Domenico Selvo FAC

Hey, Mark. I just want to let you know that, thanks in part to your help during the peer review, I have nominated this article for FA status. I hope you have a chance to check it out and I will continue carefully addressing any concern you might have. By the way, regarding your post above, I've emailed my mom who is a born-and-raised German who can really help you out in this field. I'm only a halfy...mostly American, partially German :-D. My knowledge of the exacts of German history is limited, so I think you deserve the help of someone who really knows what they're talking about. Thanks again, JHMM13 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Diverterless Supersonic Inlet

Hi Mr. Mark,

I was wanting to start a age on DSI intakes, and i was hoping for your help, especially in reviewing and editing some of the details, especially since, frankly, my aeronautics related knowledge tends to zero. I hope you'd be able to do so. Thanks and cheers. Sniperz11 19:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The page will be Diverterless Supersonic Inlet. Thanks.

I can't promise I can provide a whole lot of help as my to-do plate is already rather full, but I'll help where I can. I encourage you to also post an invite at WikiProject Aviation, where there are quite a few helpful and knowledgeable types. Are you going to be building it in your sandbox initially? Askari Mark (Talk) 04:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand, Mr. Mark. Any help, though, would be appreciated. I will post at the project group as well. I've created a sandbox on my user page at User:Sniperz11/Diverterless Supersonic Inlet. cheers. Sniperz11 05:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Interested in helping reach a compromise for the WP:ATT situation?

See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion#Working_party. : ) — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Thanks. zadignose 18:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm watching. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#The_issue_is_not_the_language_being_non-English

Thank you for the comments there, I replied (I was not following that discussion to closely on my watchlist, sorry for the delay).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: at Talk:Przyszowice_massacre#Revert_warring me and Irpen disagree whether your comments from here mean you think the sources are reliable or not. Since you are the ultimate judge on that, perhaps a short comment on that talk summarizing your point (and preferably clearly stating "yes, they are reliable" or "no, they are unreliable") would be very appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have posted my response in both places. Let's continue any further discussion in the article's talk page. Best regards, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. On the sidenote: do I understand your post correctly that you consider USHMM more reliable than IPN? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to help in some small way. As to USHMM, I certainly consider it to be more neutral a source than IPN, but I lack the direct familiarity with both to compare their reliability; however, in principle, I'd suspect the USHMM to be more reliable than the IPN wherever the latter could be used to prosecute a political advantage. Although the USHMM is a national institution, its funding is principally from private sources, which necessarily makes it more independent. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your latest post at PM, while completly agreeing with you, you may want want to see my post from 18:09, 14 April 2007 at the top of this page before we go in circles :) Whether IPN has been ever used to prosecute to gain a poltical advantage, it has never been shown as such in court; note also that while IPN can prosecute for past crimes, it does not prosecute in lustration (lustration is simply a review of one's history and declaring that one has or has not collaborated with the communist government). There is also certainly no possible prosecution for political advantage when dealing with events from 60 years ago - thus reliability of IPN when it comes to such research should be rather fullproof, I think.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking so much about events from 60 years ago, but rather – in general – IPN's charter to investigate communist-era wrongdoings. Since the PM was so long ago, it's unlikely that it could be used for political advantage (other than to tar someone with their elders' actions), which is why I have had trouble seeing why IPN might be considered unreliable for the purposes of this article. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:WPAIRCRAFT USERBOX PLANE1.jpg

Hello, Askari Mark. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:WPAIRCRAFT USERBOX PLANE1.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Askari Mark. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 11:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- tariqabjotu 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:LCA AIR Tejas 2 Views.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:LCA AIR Tejas 2 Views.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The images are a big problem in Wikipedia. The image that you used were of very low resolution. Why not try some good quality ones from acig.org posted by B.Harry. He has given permission to use his photos here in Wikipedia and I had uploaded some in that page similar to the one you uploaded. Here is that one[4]. You can do some photoshop job by uploading new images and merging them to form a single image and upload it.

Chanakyathegreat 03:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I'd made it low-res because at the time that was the requirement for fair-use images. As you're aware, the restrictions have grown even tighter. (In fact, it seems like a lot of your images are being "rejected" by the bots too.) I don't have Photoshop, so I can perform only limited image manipulation. The image you linked looks like it will do the job, so I expect I'll add it. I appreciate your help! Askari Mark (Talk) 03:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

LCA edit

The statement(that i removed and you reverted) does not mention anything about late deliveries. Can it be made to fit into the context of the paragraph by adding something like "However the deliveries only began ..." and the statement does not fit into the status section, perhaps it may fit in development history or an entirely new paragraph like developmental delays? I would like to know your suggestions. The pictures problem is even bothering me as I want to upload a few pictures of Arjun bridge layer Tank and Pinaka MBRL from Ministry of defence report. I have started a topic in wikimedia copyright questions here [5]. Please give your comments here too.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaushal Mehta (talk)

Kaveri engine

I have seen certain gas turbine engines which have been modifications of turbofan engines and the usage has been mentioned as a derivative for example Rolls-Royce Olympus and General Electric CF6. I am no aeronautics expert, so this is just a query if this use can be added as a derivative of the kaveri engine. Furthermore if I remember correctly the kaveri engine programme was supposed to produce three versions
1)ForTejas
2)For Arjun tank like M1 abrams
3)For ships this one being KMGT.
I am not able to get the links or sources for this info so wont be puting anything regarding this. The MoD reports[6] too put KMGT as a derivative of kaveri, so can it not be put as a derivative? Again this is just a curious query to a person who i think has a better knowledge of the subject. Regards Kaushal mehta 08:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kaushal! I've added a couple sentences regarding this to the article. Let me know what you think. If you’ve got a recent link handy that describes these plans in further detail, rather than the brief note in passing in the MoD report, please add it.

Just for technical background, the word “derivative” can cover a wide degree of “relationship”, and the word is often thrown around far more casually than is achievable by “real-world” engineering. The basic physics of turbine powerplants are easily extendable and there can be a great deal of “parts commonality”, but differing operational environments usually require major design changes to a given engine design. I’ve yet to see an engine designed for one type of platform not require extensive re-design when adapted to use on another type of platform. Even on airplanes, there’s a big difference between engines used on fighters and those used by bombers or airliners. The operating environments of combat aircraft, armored fighting vehicles, and naval vessels pose much more extreme differences. (I once gave a briefing to General Dynamics’ Land Systems Division at a time when they were experimenting with simply rotating the M-1 Abrams’ turbine engine 90° and that ended up being abandoned because of the amount of redesign needed to both the engine and the drive train.) Since the “GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri” article is about a specific model – rather than an engine family – and these other “derivative engines” for non-aviation platforms will have significant design changes, I don’t feel we need to extensively discuss them in that article. I did wikilink the KMGT reference so the redlink will serve as a reminder that a future article should be developed on it. Best regards, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:DRDO logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:DRDO logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Me 262

Thanks for your note on the reverts in the Me 262 article. I recall that I only made one reversion in what I thought was a vandal attack (never thinking it was an admin with an agenda); I copied a whole "last clean edit" and put it back in place but he immediately reverted it so I gave up, put a space into the infobox to indicate a change and then placed a request in the edit history for an administrator to look at the article. I had already asked for a stop in the attacks and indicated that the 3R limit had been reached as well as placing a query in the aviation group forum for assisstance. I would have never guessed that this campaign to eliminate all pop culture sections was coming from an admin. When I called for an administrator, guess who responded? I can only laugh at the silliness of this whole escapade with me frantically trying to head off what I believed was a deliberate troll/vandal attack, having seen so many of them in the past concentrating on the popular culture sections, and meanwhile the other person was calmly reverting everything and quoting all sorts of protocal and guidelines. I should have picked up on that, ordinary vandals don't often cite justification for their actions. I have no idea where things are, but I know that Jeff Finlayson and BillCJ were also involved and I bet all of us thought that a very sophisticated vandal was at work. Oh well, live and learn... Bzuk 00:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

The best I can figure is that with the furious nature of the reversions, I had copied the F-22 article into my MAC's data memory and when I went to the Me 262 page, intending to replace it with the last "clean" edit of the article, the F-22 file overrid the other copy. FWIW Bzuk 03:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

Help

Our mutal Italian friend requires some help in editing, he is now contributing to the Ki-61 Hien and Ki-100. I can sort out some of the grammar and spelling, but I have corrected this countless times. He continues to make the same mistakes, not capitalizing months, using measures such as "ltrs." and other basic errors. I have written to him by email, posted on his home page and asked for other help from the aviation group forum. There is also another major issue that I haven't fully addressed but that is that most of the submissions are POV and sound like they are copied from magazines as well as being wholly Italian-centred- go figure, but still, much of the stuff is useless but I don't want to just hack and slash. What do you think? FWIW Bzuk.

Hi Mark, I did think the articles were mainly derived from magazine articles as he had indicated in a note, but someone else brought up that possibility of copyvios. Since Stephan has created/written approximately 2000 articles previously in the Italian Wikipedia and his concentration was on Italian aviation history, what I think is happening is that he is translating these Italian articles so he has a huge amount of text but since English is a second language, there is the inevitable garbling of words. This is just a supposition but I believe that our friend is mostly concerned with creation of articles not necessarily editing because this is still a very difficult arena for him to master. In translating some of his Italian notes, I found that he is actually trying very hard to learn English but as you can appreciate, it isn't an easy thing to do especially with all the idiosyncrasies in the language. I recall an old English teacher once remarking that English is one of the five most difficult languages to learn for foreigners. I really appreciate what you are doing and in the long run, I think your approach of gently prodding and pulling him ahead is the correct approach. [:¬∆ Bzuk 04:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

Hello

There is a big chance that some of the russian admins will try and delete the article about siberian nationalism. Do you know anyone who can make sure this doesn't happen? --I have a dream81119

No, there’s no way to prevent it, because we assume good faith. As Gordonofcartoon noted in the AfD, the best way to strengthen the article’s “keepability” is to source it appropriately. (This means that you cannot use a forum – of any kind – as a reliable source. Instead, you need to find reliable secondary published sources, online or in print.)

Given all the “keep” votes so far, I doubt that someone would close it as “delete” since it would very quickly attract notice and investigation. If what you fear transpires, there are other steps to pursue. In the meantime, work on the sourcing and encourage the other editors of that article to do the same. Regards, Askari Mark (Talk) 21:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Autodynamics

I made a comment on your comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autodynamics. Please respond. Nondistinguished 00:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I made one more additional comment. Please check it out when you can. Nondistinguished 01:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I have looked at the sources and answered your question, as well as made a suggestion. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Siberian nationalism

If several russians are deleting all the references on the articles about siberian nationalism; and i want to expose them, how would i do that? --I have a dream81119

Haven't you gotten around to merging these sections yet?

talking about this. Don't point fingers, be bold, bitch! 68.124.22.231 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thanks Mark for your kind words and supporting me in the WPMILHIST coordinator election! You deserve a WikiThanks!! --Eurocopter tigre 19:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection request - Article 4th generation jet fighter

Hi there

I was wonderin' if you'd have a look at the unregistered user edit numbers on the article4th generation jet fighter. Its getting out of hand.

Thanks

-- Ash sul 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the situation as you asked, and it's definitely a mess. There's some good edits being added, but a bunch of POV as well, and large deletions of text. I'm not an admin, but I posted an urge....

Hi mark

thanks for the quick response. I have contacted for that very reason...I dont think i can fix this at all....so I remembered u as a contact.

Hopefully this will be taken care of, 'coz for ppl like me who love read abo aircraft, this is not good.

Thanks again -- Ash sul 00:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again mark

the unknown user's POV edit in very large scale continues on article 4th generation jet fighter. What can we do?? -- Ash sul 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"At the moment, I don't have the time to deal with it. My inclination is to wait until the two IP guys blow ..."

Agreed. Thanks for the response mark. Cheers. -- Ash sul 12:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD on Universidad Tecnológica de Santiago

I have removed the {{prod}} from Universidad Tecnológica de Santiago, which you proposed for deletion. It is a university, which is constituted as notable within Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! KTC 12:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations - "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." A nationally recognized and accredited university would be considered as having its scope of activities that are national (or international) in scale, and hence notable for inclusion. That is of course just my reading of it, but AFAIK it falls in with the general consensus here on Wikipedia. Note, the same can't be said of secondary and primary schools and further education colleges, or unaccredited "university". KTC 14:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral proposal

I've acceded to the request by you and one other to change "WP recommends" to "Please consider". I've removed the reference to "singular they". I presume that you support the proposal overall with these changes. Tony 01:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

GNL

Thanks, Askari. If you don't mind, I'll look at your suggestions carefully tomorrow. It's 1.30 am, and I've been browbeaten elsewhere by one or two people on that page. Phewee—I knew it would be controversial, but the amount of venom is gobsmacking. Tony 15:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And on both sides, I've noticed. ;-) As a social observation on Wikipedia, I've noticed that in many of these arguments, what people really want is to debate their POVs no-holds-barred, rather than come to a mutual resolution. I wonder if there were a "Wikiforum" to contend in, whether we might get more consensual work done here. ... Nah, I'm just an optimist. Sleep well, Askari Mark (Talk) 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice proposal

So your proposal, which was ignored when you first offered it, is the leading one after all. I offered what you offered as a temporary sulution, and had only a Europe image to place but Parsecboy found one, and i placed it, that looks so good that probably what you offered will be the one to stick. Nice work! M.V.E.i. 16:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I just saw what Parsecboy found and it's better than I could have hoped. Thanks for your contribution, too! Fortunately, it didn't draw too much "incoming". ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 16:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that anybody will opose to that. When i think of it, now i understand how stupid we all were by not listening to what you offered in the first place! M.V.E.i. 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's me – "Champion Gordian Knot-Cutter"! It's real easy to get lost in a heated debate and hard to take a deep breath and stand back for a fresh look. That's why it's good practice to bring someone uninvolved in for a different perspective. That's what Oberiko asked for, which is how I got involved. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 17:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GNL proposal

I think your changes are good; please confirm that not was inadvertently omitted. Tony 02:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! Yes, its absence was in error and I've amended the proposed text accordingly. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

JDEdwards CNC Article

You added the advertisement tags, etc, to the JDEdwards CNC Configurable Network Computing article. A description of an IT architecture that says positive things about it does not amount to an adverstisement. The ignorant aspect of your statement, is simply this. How can the article be an AD, as you can NOT buy the CNC architecture and also, it is NOT marketed as a product. It is 100% proprietary, itself NOT a good thing these days. It is also quite complicated and the training on it has historically be far less than satisfactory. In fact, I'm going to add that to the initial summary section.

Before you make claims about IT topics, I suggest you actually READ the article and SUGGEST in the discussion substantial ways the article can be improved. I intend it to be a world-class article as almost no one outside of the JDEdwards CNC field have any clue just what this is all about. I wrote the article because I got tired of explaining the concept. I intend to greatly enhance the article with drawings, etc, as time permits. Please help MAKE this article better in as specific a way as you can. I DO intend to get outside sources ect, but understand that I wrote this entire article from SCRATCH and to get it along as far as it is already is no small feat. Thanks! SimonATL 06:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you assumed good faith, you wouldn't embarass yourself by attacking others due to your "jumped-to" conclusions. I did read the article and debated (re)adding the tag. I decided to because stylistically it reads like an advertisement. Read the tag. It says "This article or section is written like an advertisement." It doesn't read "This article or section is an advertisement" – which is the assumption to which you leapt without forethought. If I thought it actually was an advertisement, I would have placed an AfD tag on it. The only problem I see with the article is that it is written predominantly in the style of a product advertisement rather than in an encyclopedic style. (And, yes, the lack of independent sourcing contributes to that impression, as does the fact that the article doesn't address comparative strengths and weaknesses of the system – aside from its being proprietary, which in your POV is a detriment.) You should consider that the tag is not intended to deprecate your hard work, but rather an invitation to other editors to help change that. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Wikistalking anon

Yeah, I've been dealing with this guy since about May. He used to be User:Labyrinth13, and I was one of the editors that was more or less responsible for getting him indef-blocked (he did it to himself, I just reported him). So, he has this vendetta against me, apparently. And he doesn't seem to get tired of it. And he uses either dynamic IPs or an open proxy, so it's pretty much impossible to block him. Ahh, the joys of being stalked on Wikipedia, eh? Parsecboy 01:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And to think, some people want to become admins! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cope India 2005&2004

Thanks for helping to bring this topic up, responses have already been posted in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freepsbane (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, X is an article, not evil

Thank you for your kind comments. That is the shorter version ;~) ! If you feel you can prune it down then please feel free (although you may wish to link your cut version from the original?) Cheers. LessHeard vanU 19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Bummer, Dude!

I hope your injuries weren't serious! Take good care of yourself so you'll recover quickly! Askari Mark (Talk) 04:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks Mark. back to business now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fooINT feedback!

You raise some interesting points. Yes, it does make sense to have a...umm...I was going to call it "central" intelligence article, but that has too many other meanings. I'd avoid military intelligence, since there's usually a distinction made between what the national-level analysts and the tactical-level warfighters do. In US practice, the TENCAP and TIARA doctrines show how the two levels cross-pollinate.

Without naming "it", let it be the place that the intelligence cycle is described, and then the major disciplines. The whole field is in transition, especially as everyone tries to understand how MASINT fits -- as you'll see, there were First World War things that conceptually are MASINT.

How do you see BDA fitting? I hadn't thought of it as a discipline, but rather one of the products of analysis. Certainly, some of the information for than analysis comes from post-strike observation, as basic as someone walking through the craters. BDA strikes me as analytic, though, because the most reliable BDA uses cross-confirming sensors. For example, in 1991, when F-117's bombed the main antenna tower in Baghdad, their electro-optical sensors recorded a big BOOM on the target. Pilots typically have trouble telling if the explosion was next to the target or on the target. SIGINT, however, would confirm the hit, if the time stamp on the electro-optical recording matched the time that the signals from the antenna stopped.

As far as information operations, I find those even harder to define than MASINT. My general inclination had been to think of as direct attacks -- ethical hacking as it were -- on automated information systems. Many people, however, include things as wide-ranging as propaganda and deception under it, the latter both "cognitive" in what you want the enemy to believe, and "procedural" in the sense of the false information you give him so he sees what you want him to see.

Could you give me more of a sense what you mean by the development of the disciplines? A lot of the development came when someone invented a technique, like photography, without intelligence in mind. When people started taking pictures of military targets, that became the beginning of IMINT -- if you exclude, which I'm not sure I should, the sketchbook. While I forget the details, Baden-Powell, the founder of Scouting, posed as a butterfly artist, hiding fortification details in the fine lines of the wings. On the other hand, there are clearly cases where someone started out with a military (or national strategic) requirement and then looked for technology to carry it out. There are also cases where someone significantly modified on-the-shelf technology to militarize it. !

Thanks again. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me sleep on it ... it's been a long day. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggested “Military intelligence” more because I was tired and nearly brain-dead. Actually, what we really need is an article on “Intelligence-gathering” or some similar words to that effect. Right now, if you search on that term, you only get a list. There needs to be a good central article on what it is, why it’s important, how it’s collected, analyzed and disseminated, and a brief discussion of the various means of intelligence-gathering. I’ll go ahead and propose that name, “Intelligence-gathering”, as the “central” article.

I recommend that at least at the start there is some discussion of the history of its development and maybe a short list of a few examples where it proved decisive. That offers a venue both for linking to other articles on those episodes as well as perhaps an eventual separate article on the history of such “espionage”. As for the history of the development of the disciplines, it might begin with a short section for each on the major technical or technological innovations that significantly advanced the state-of-the-art. Remember, this is supposed to be a central “big picture” article. Whatever you put in here should link to the more detailed existing or future spin-off articles.

BDA is indeed a product, but it’s also a process and it’s a “decision switch” for the OODA loop. The one time I got to talk with Col. Boyd, I suggested that his loop was more a torc since a loop is just an endless circle and somewhere you need to get off and go to the next loop. BDA is that feedback mechanism that creates a decision point where if you didn’t kill the target, you “spark” across to the beginning end of the torc and start the same cycle again; if you did kill it, you “spark” to the start of the next torc. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Color me envious about talking to COL Boyd. I can offer a couple of brief conversations with ADM Hopper, and I did work for LTG Faurer (former DIRNSA) in his first civilian job after retirement -- which wasn't SIGINT/COMSEC but communications standards. In things-being-strange category, I had a really nice robe handmade by RADM Hillenkoetter, but I never met him. He was an Annapolis classmate of an inlaw, and his hobby was sewing. The robe was too big for the recipient, so I got it. Would M have made a robe for 007? :-)

Does "intelligence gathering" meet the "overarching" requirement? I can see "tasking" fitting in with that article. What used to be called "collection guidance", to the extent that can be characterized in an unclassified context: "I need to know this fact. What is the best way to find it?"

The analytic and estimating processes, not strictly the same, are somewhat different. As I think I mentioned (long day), what the Soviets called "correlation of forces" is yet another concept. All three of these are politically sensitive, in what I think is a positive way, in the US at present -- if you look at Stovepiping, it should be obvious which definition I added. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never got a robe, so I guess we're even. ;-) I prefer intel gathering over "tasking" because the latter term is less likely to be one the general reader is likely to think of. An "overarching" article shouldn't have too technical a title. The Intelligence (information gathering) article is also too generic, as written. IMHO the real value of Wikipedia is that it's a good place for the general reader to "warm up" their knowledge on a topic. (Of course, I hate WP's math articles – some of which I don't understand – for the very same reason.)

The stovepiping article is cute, but the term has far broader usage (and I'm willing to bet GW didn't invent the direct pipe – he's not that innovative). Askari Mark (Talk) 02:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Transclusion

Ah, you wish for me to reveal all my secrets? ;-)

The answer has to do with how transclusion handles namespaces. The default namespace for all transclusion calls—the one assumed for any call that doesn't explicitly specify a namespace, in other words—is Template:. For example, {{XYZ}} is actually equivalent to {{Template:XYZ}}. To transclude a page in another namespace, we need to specify it explicitly; for example, {{Wikipedia:XYZ}}.

(Note that the main article namespace has a blank "name" that can be used; so {{:XYZ}} transcludes the article-space XYZ page.)

The catch, however, is the fact that WP: is not an actual namespace; as far as MediaWiki is concerned, WP:XYZ is just a bizarrely-named page in the article namespace. So {{WP:XYZ}} is interpreted as having no namespace specified, and is thus equivalent to {{Template:WP:XYZ}}. Prepending a colon forces the transclusion to switch over to the article namespace, which gets the correct WP:XYZ page.

Hope that helps! Kirill 04:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not actually possible. Transclusion works on a page level; it's not generally possible to transclude only part of a page.

You can produce a similar effect by wrapping the parts you don't want transcluded inside <noinclude> tags; but this is error-prone unless carefully monitored, since any change to the tags can cascade onto transcluding pages in unexpected ways. Kirill 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

well said

I just noticed this archived discussion and have to say (as the originator of the MoU in question) that you elucidated the point I was trying to get at much better than I did myself. Thanks. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I sympathize with your effort to find a middle ground. However, given the sort of Sturm und Drang that can often arise on even trivial topics (like what to call the Shatt al-Arab), the challenges of going head-on with issues that matter greatly – not to mention the chances for success – are rather daunting. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Army Issue

There is also this paragraph regarding abandonment of bodies and complaints by relatives [7].

Thanks for helping to sort it out. I'll try to find SL Army responses. Sinhala freedom 05:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The article lacked that paragraph when I looked at it. I'll comment on it shortly. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My question is do we really need such section? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort on writing an encyclopedia, not a collaborative effort on writing news bulletins about abandoning the dead bodies of fallen comrades. This is a single incident(or few incidents) of a 30 year old conflict which was cleared the path for more than 80,000 people for rest in peace. Right now I have the Sri Lanka Army's roll of honor list which is contain 10,688 names of fallen members since October 15, 1981 to June 30, 1999 excluding the number of missing in action. As I said before there is no need at all for mention such issues in an encyclopedia article and such abandoning the dead bodies incidents have even reported in countless times where the developed world armies have been involved. So this matter is obviously subject to the WP:Notability and WP:NOT#NEWS. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 22:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to resolve the issue's notability. As I pointed out in the talk page, most times the fact that an army has not been able to recover all of its casualties is not notable in of itself. The only aspect that potentially makes this notable here is due to its apparently being an issue in Sri Lanka itself – and that is something you and more knowledgeable editors will need to resolve. My purpose was more to demonstrate how to handle the write-up of a contentious issue. You'll not that I have not added it myself to the article in question simply because I don't know whether it should be there or not. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

mediator-admin

Thank you for floating the idea of a "mediator-admin"[8]. I have long held that we need more people skills among admins, and a different type of admins might just address that. However, both MedCab and MedCom have recently been experiencing fewer requests for mediation. (See WT:MEDCAB#No open cases) So it doesn't seem like we need it right now. — Sebastian 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's so much less need (based on the number of disputes I run across) as it may be that these venues are increasingly perceived as ineffective. My perception is that mediation needs to have some "teeth", which is why I'm watching the Sri Lanka Reconciliation affair with interest. I like 1RR, but I think there should be "0RR without discussing the issue on the talk page first". Cheers and best wishes, Askari Mark (Talk) 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this would be even better. But 1RR is already a big step in an area where we often had more than 3RR. In mediation, one has to be open to healthy compromises, and I think this is one of them.

I agree with you mediation (or any conflict resolution under the ArbCom level, for that matter) needs to have some "teeth". But there comes strong opposition even from mediators themselves - see Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive 5#New template for mediated cases. — Sebastian 22:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, I think some mediators are so into developing consensus that they forget that the hard-won consensus is supposed to endure … at least a little longer than the next edit war started by someone frustrated over their POV not overcoming all others. Right now, even to get a mediation started, all participants have to agree and there’s frequently one or more who won’t sign up; on the other end of the process are those won’t agree to abide by it if it doesn’t go the way they were hoping it would. A little anarchy can be a good thing, creatively speaking, but interminable POV siege warfare is not. The resulting mayhem has long been noted as a major cause of productive editors leaving the project. I rather like Durova’s WP:CEM proposal. At the very least it elevates the issue to the larger community which is inherently less “owner-oriented” about a given subject matter. It sure beats trying to gum the trolls to death. Besides, I think the community is growing less willing to tolerate enduring disruption. Even the Grand Poobah himself seems to slowly coming around of late. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me! I checked out WP:CEM a week ago, and there seems not much action. Do you think they could be disappointed because there were not enough cases, or not enough success? If so, we could tell them that it's just a general problem. — Sebastian 01:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe few know about it. Maybe I missed it, but I'm unaware of a major test case that would really bring it to the community's attention ... and lead them to believe it might just be more successful than previous endeavors. Perhaps it needs a champion ..... ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 04:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We could add it to WP:DR for a start. I left a note on WT:DR#Community enforced mediation, so per my private policy below I (or anyone else) could add it 24 hours from now. — Sebastian 05:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC) On second thought, I would prefer if you or someone else could add it. I don't WP:OWN that page, and I already did the last few edits there. — Sebastian 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean – it makes you seem as lonely as the Maytag repairman over there. In any case, you've already posted it, so I'll just second it for now. It would be nice to get some commentary before changing things. Viel Glück, mein Freund! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

:-) Yes, that's exactly how I feel there! I wouldn't wait any longer. Nobody seems to care about that page. I think you can just go ahead and write something concise, as per your suggestion. But isn't that weird? You'd think some people would care about dispute resolution! Danke für die guten Wünsche! — Sebastian 10:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RR and talk page discussion

With respect to RR and talk page discussion, any thoughts on how long the person proposing change should wait for any response? If there is a response, how much back-and-forth on the talk page is appropriate to see if consensus can be reached? Recently, I had an editor place a comment on the talk page, of a lengthy article, that he wanted to make some extensive changes. Within hours, he did so, and removed a substantial amount of content, apparently without reading my first response.

After reading that response, he made a polite but fairly nonspecific response. Over the last couple of days, he's made incremental changes after the massive delete, concluding them with "more yet to do; I'm tired, etc.".

The article is within a hierarchy of articles, and I posted what I was doing on assorted places plus my user page. Part of his questions pertained to why I didn't cover certain material, which, in fact was the main focus of another article.

How does one deal with this sort of thing? I don't know whether it's common or not, but when I've done a major revision or introduced multiple articles, I first put them on sandbox pages under my user page and requested comment. I didn't just jump in, rip out half the content, and then start putting things back, a few paragraphs at a time. The editor also suggested moving some material to a subordinate new article, which would have been fine, but I personally would have offered an outline of the article before cutting.

My apologies if this got inappropriately long; I started rolling, and, to some extent, realized, as I was writing here, how much I disliked the way this had been handled. To me, good faith means participating in dialogue, when offered, before massive changes. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no fixed time. Some people even advocate zero time (WP:BRD), and they have some good arguments. I don't usually wait, except in two situations: If another editor is also editing the same article, I may do a handful of unrelated edits to give the other editor the time to read my proposal and reply to it. If no reply comes after a while, I may ask on the user page. But this is rather rare. When I propose changes on policy pages I usually wait 24 h, so there's a chance for someone from every time zone to reply. — Sebastian 01:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about an apparent non-sequitur. I thought this fit with the issue being discussed about RR, but if that was in the context of a specific article, my comment was indeed out of place. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I had the impression you were trying to bring a specific case to someone's (Sebastian's?) attention, since the discussion is, indeed, general. I suspect I know the editor you are talking about. If so, it's difficult to resolve because he doesn't really want to. Eventually he'll tick off enough folks that he'll get indefinitely blocked or banned. IMHO, you were in your right to ask for at least an outline for a major reorg before its implementation and should ask that it be left unacted upon for at least a week so that there's a reasonable time for most interested editors to review it and comment on it. Another approach you might recommend is that they build the revision initially in their sandbox. That gives a great preview and people can comment on it more perceptively. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to the proposed generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles

Thank you for your kind invite to this forum and my apologies for replying so late. I will review this proposed structure for the air force articles and will post my comment on this matter as soon as possible. Take care. --->kompikos 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Kaliningrad

Hello! I want to inform you that I have mentioned your name at Talk:Kaliningrad#Separate articles. Olessi (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

F-22 cost

Hi Mark -

You may or may not be aware of a controversy that's erupted surrounding the costing of the F-22 with one editor wanting to insert a figure that's significantly higher than the one we're presently showing. He's got sources (see my talk page) and I was wondering if you could help me make sense of the discrepancy? --Rlandmann (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of it and intend to get involved, however, real life has not allowed me sufficient free time to get involved. I will do so as soon as I can. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

F-22 Raptor/Eurofighter Typhoon dogfight

Mark, can you send me or post the transcript of the International Air Power Review (Issue 20) article on the Typhoon at China Lake. I can't get my hands on one, since like usual, I bought Issue 17-19 and 21 on, skipping 20. The exact wording is what I need including one editor's assertion that the radar lock was a "suprisingly long rate." (...whatever that means?) FWIW, the BBC report seems to be a rehash of the original story in Issue 20. Bzuk (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

I'll do one better: Here's a link to my now archived post critiquing it. The paragraph in italics is the entire text addressing the issue in that article. As I promise Rlandmann in the previous entry, I plan to get involved as soon as time permits. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, it would be good to stem the angry debate in the three article talk pages that is now degenerated into a sock accusation war wherin two editors have now been implicated in what I can basically categorize as stupidity. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

I have just finished reading the transcript and it looks to be an ""urban myth" that has no verification whatsoever. No only was the original posting to the Eurofighter Typhoon rife with errors in transcribing basically what was a copyviol but a huge kerfuffle was made over the phrase "at a suprisingly long rate" which I edited and changed to "for a suprisingly long period of time" wherein the original statement clearly reads "suprisingly long range." If this little miscreant who started all the complaints on the three articles' bias had only bothered to interpret the statement properly which then led to the joining on of other intemperate souls made the situation even more frenzied. It now looks like there are sock accusations used as bludgeoning tools to stiffle opponents. Thanks for sorting out this mess. Bzuk (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

AARGH, see: [9], this editor is incorrigible. I have posted a definition of tenditious editing and everything matches the edits here. Bzuk (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I saw it, and I have responded. Let's face it, the guy is an incorrigible troll. All he does is keep repeating the same things over and over (and insult everybody) and cannot be called upon to reassess the supposed quality of his arguments. This sort will just handwave away all superior argument or evidence since it's incompatible with his agenda. You can try to discuss matters with him until you are blue in the face, but he's not going to back down. As I see it, he's just a major disruptive factor on the articles he trolls. It's not worth it to feed this kind of troll, so I've pretty much had my say in the various article talk pages I've contributed to tonight. Thanks for giving it your best shot, Bill. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)