Untitled edit

I'm working on this page. There's cool stuff coming... Please give me a minute, or two. Please post here, do not simply delete this page.

Praytell, what does Givhan have to do with this guy? Why the link? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Brig Gen Givhan was one of his friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedThunderBuster (talkcontribs) 02:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Folks, there's lots of sources to show his notability: [1], [2], and [3]. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

This article concernc Peter Bielkowicz the notable physicist. Please take note that there is another Peter Bielkowicz, a computer scientist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedThunderBuster (talkcontribs) 03:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protection requested edit

Because of the disruptive IPs adding unrelated videos and stuff, I have asked for this article to be semi-protected. De728631 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Editors and administrators are being disruptive vandals to this page edit

Editors and administrators are being disruptive vandals to this page by removing bib refs, i.e. vandal by De728631 GraYoshi2x shifted to Grayshi Jarkeld reverted; please use discussion page before vandalizing, i.e. deleting work! And check the references, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.17.25.219 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

  1. The images are not augmenting the article. No direct link to the subject.
  2. There is no need for all his work to be used as references.
  3. Several other references do not have anything to do with the subject of the article. References should be relevant to the subject of the article.
  4. The main text is clearer now than the version you keep putting back.
Please stop vandalizing this article. Jarkeld (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Actually, this one reference doesn't look bad [4]. It's published by Air University Press (although I haven't looked at the credentials of this publisher), and pages 59-60 are on topic and they cover well the second paragraph. Anyone has a problem with me re-adding this source to the article? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

citations for verification. edit

Please check revision 19:12, 7 March 2010 Jarkeld (talk | contribs) (2,692 bytes) (Undid revision 348374049 by 83.9.216.23 (talk)) for citations for verification deleted by Jarkeld . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.9 (talk)