User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 14

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #199

Archives

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

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

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

Toasted Peanut Butter and Tomato Sandwich - Deleted speedily

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

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

City of Everett

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cedar Fire

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

Custerwest/COI

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

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

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

2 articles to check

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

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

Desiree Horton

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

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

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

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

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

MAFFS

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

Your Welcome! message

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

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

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

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

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

VNCCC 23:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

WP:NPA

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

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

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

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

Helicopters in popular culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

can you show me or instruct me on how to in put a pic? I would like to add a few for User:DREWNIGG/Copters in Pop Culture thanxANigg 06:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The code is: [[Image:filename.jpg|thumb|right|captiontext]]. And when you go to look at this in edit mode, please ignore the two "nowiki" tags at each end of the code...they're there so I can actually display the code in my text to you. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes

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

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

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

Questionable copyright pics

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

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

DYK

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

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

Did you know...

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

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

Image:Potential Steve Fossett Airplane.jpg

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

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

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

Cobra firefighters

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

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

Tankers?

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

What I have are the following:

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

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

Thanks for the welcome

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

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

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

RT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child pornography?

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

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

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

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

Thanks, desert rat

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

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

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

Re: Red vs. Blue

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

Electric helicopter

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

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

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

Jamaica POV

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

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

Jamaica

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

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

Ackees 05:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Copyvio

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

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

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

Accuracy check

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

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

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

Saab 37 Viggen

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

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

RFC/USER discussion concerning (ThreeE)

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

DC-8 religion

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

Connection Planning

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

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

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

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

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

MyBlackBook

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

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

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

Why did you revert??

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

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

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

Your inaccurate comments on my talk page and elsewhere

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

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

Custerwest

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

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

1984

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

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

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

2007

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

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

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

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

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

Custerwest

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

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

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

Odd vandalism

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

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

C-130A N116TG crash in France in 2000

Hi Alan -

Here is a link to a crash report...

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

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

Covert use of forestry C-130s

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

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

AfD closure of Capoeira in popular culture needs your signature

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

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

Reverting SS Republic (1853)

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

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

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

MarVelo 02:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

but your code began:

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

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

as per the page i linked it is stated as

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

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

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

Fishy admin behavior

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

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

2002 airtanker crashes

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

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

Vandal-slapping

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

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

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

Thanks much! - !!!!

R66 Goat??

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

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

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

Looks like this is our week for [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robinson_R66_Goat&oldid=161139837 people who don't learn their lessons quickly]! - BillCJ 17:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Deleted the redirect and protected the title, so it won't be able to be re-established. Gave user a final warning. One more stunt like that and the banhammer starts swinging. I had to spend my Saturday fixing a leaking LOX system on our 222U, and I'm grumpy! Wait...a Saturday at the airport vs. with the mother-in-law...maybe I'm not so grumpy after all! AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

F-22 vs. Typhoon

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

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

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

I'm taking that as an admission that you're a sockpuppeteer and a threat to use those sockpuppets to manipulate the articles to your liking. I will be watching you like an AWACS (was going to say "like a hawk, but..."), and if you use any other user names to do so, you will find yourself sanctioned. So, here's how this whole thing is going to work: Proposals are going to be discussed on the talk page, consensus is going to be reached, and everyone, including your and all your puppets, are going to be expected to respect that. I would prefer to leave things at their current semi-protection status, but I will fully protect until folks start working together cooperatively, if that's what it takes. This is not a forum for fans of the planes, so focus your attentions on making these articles genuinely encyclopedic, and everything will go fine. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

BANG goes the Herky-bird

Go here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007420642,00.html .

Sub*

Mark Sublette 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Wikzilla‎ sockpuppet

I noticed that you have dealt with this editor recently and noticed that he claimed in his talk page that he had engaged in sock puppetry. Apparently he’s made good on his threat and activated a sleeper account simply for the sake of continuing his editwars. The sleeper account : Rangerwik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had no prior contributions and was activated shortly after the other account’s block. The only edits this new account has undertaken [9] are the very same that his prior account was launching just prior to his block. As you are a editor already knowledgeable about these incidents and clearly more experienced than me it seems that you would be best suited to aid in this case. Thank you for your timeFreepsbane 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself. I've reverted the new account's edits, indefinitely blocked it, and extended Wikzilla's block. Let me know if you see any other suspicious behaviour! AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Got another one here, User:71.247.234.118 -- but I didn't think we were supposed to block anon IPs indefinitely. NawlinWiki 15:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you were posting here at the sametime I was posting on your user page. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Clara Blinn

Yes, you've heard that name before, a zillion times, on Talk:Battle of Washita River. As you're the admin who's been most involved in assisting us with the continuing issues at the Washita article, I thought you would be interested in this new article, which has long been in the planning & in the research. I finally got it started. I believe Clara Blinn will still need mention in the Washita article, but that it would violate WP:WEIGHT to discuss it within the body of that article to the extent Custerwest would like it to be discussed there. And, in order to deal with the issues of NPOV that CW seems incapable or unwilling to understand, it became obvious quite a while ago that a full treatment in its own article was called for. I've been scads of research, & organizing notes; the rest of the article should appear within the next couple of days. Maybe this will help get some of the overdiscussion of this off the talk page for the Battle of Washita River when our friend eventually comes off his one month ban. Though undoubtedly there will still be argument when CW's block ends, since it'll be as far as I can make it an NPOV article instead of WP:SOAP as I think he'd prefer.

Thanks for considering me to be credible. ;) I really want to back away from Wikipedia somewhat in order to work on my own writing, & I will be doing so almost completely (except for checking in on articles like these) in November because I'll be doing NaNoWriMo. But I feel I committed in the Washita RfC to seeing that article through (& by extension the Clara Blinn article as well); it's in no small part because of the trust you & other participants in that RfC have placed in me that I intend to fulfill that commitment before my writing Wikivacation. Thank you. Continuing best wishes. --Yksin 09:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know...I'll take a look. I know what you mean about Wikipedia taking time away...it's impacted my own writing and editing as well, and I've been bugged a lot by a publisher wanting me to do a book, so I might have to throttle back a bit myself. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OSA

I see, that this thing is continuing on other web pages. Greeting for the wise displayed. I am started to be really amused.

As for my weakness, one is seriously to lost time to try to contribue to this encyclopedy. It worth nothing that 'everyone contribues as he can' right? And obviousely it was higly needed to rollback also Osa and P-15 pages. Jhon, to make the things worse has already threaten me. BillBC as usual not answers to my questions. So i ask to you now: why my english was 'acceptable' months ago, and i was capable to edit articles, while now is not 'acceptable'? Do you are aware that this lead me to exit by project defenitively, not being at all available to spent time to have nothing published, because there is someone happy to rollback everything? Where is the friendly manners, wikilove-nette and so on when one is treaten and seen just as a moron? Well, obviousel i must conclude that i am a 'problem' for wiki, not a worth. It's so, so why Wiki is free? Why this is not pretended to be 'Britannica'? I pretend too much to be to at very least ignored, seen that it's impossible to be helped by nobody? Regards--Stefanomencarelli 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Stefano, did you actually read my comment, and John's? Neither of us said that your contributions are unwelcome. On the contrary, we are trying to help you make the most of your contributions, and make you contributions of the quality that will last. Your English wasn't acceptable months ago, and isn't now. And don't pretend that others haven't told you this. Do you know how many spelling and grammar mistakes you just made in that statement above? You need to learn what every professional writer learns: we all make mistakes, and there is no shame in letting an editor polish your work. You need to set your pride aside, and ask for help. There's no shame in that. You ask why I reverted your edits? Because in some of them, you actually changed proper grammar to improper. In others, you put in large chunks of text which were clearly taken word-for-word from a magazine, and are therefore copyvios...you've been told many times that this is not acceptable. No one is asking you to leave, but we are asking you to work with others to make your contributions of the highest quality. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First:

1- but since English is not your first language, unfortunately you written version of it has some serious grammar and syntax problems, which are bad enough as to make your writing below what is expected of text in an English-language encyclopedia. This is not just a forum, but an encyclopedia, and we intend to have the highest quality text as possible

Well, there is one mode to see it: since i make mistakes, you can still correct them. But CORRECT is not DELETE. They are different words, different meanings, and so on. This is the wonderful wikipedia, a thing in which there are 2 millions contributors.

2-In others, you put in large chunks of text which were clearly taken word-for-word from a magazine, and are therefore copyvios...you've been told many times that this is not acceptable.

No, dear, not acceptable is this accusation. Every thing was said about myself in Wiki.it, where i was banned, but NOBODY have never proof or suggest that i am a copyvioler of any kind. Accusing me for this is not only untrue, but also a diffamatory statement. I have already said this to you, and still i say this to you and all the rest of the world: WHERE ARE THE TEXTS I HAD COPIED? I am simply impressed by the easy to make this fakes accusations to me when there is no proof of any kind about, even not in wiki.it, where there are 200,000 natives that can contest to me such copyviols.

So there are these paradoxial situations: from one side you accused me to have bad english, in the other hand you accused me to have made copyviols: that obviousely are better written, so you have always a 'reason' to attack me: deleting for 'bad english' (what's this? an english school?) or if better written, to be a copyviols. Yeah, really a wikilove manner to act.

3-You ask why I reverted your edits? Because in some of them, you actually changed proper grammar to improper And you are able to inverte this awful process?

4-Your English wasn't acceptable months ago, and isn't now. And don't pretend that others haven't told you this.

Still, if i had not written 'because my poor english' almost all the italian airplanes will been still lacking A LOT. Now they are a way improved. Oh, my bad english is really a damnation for wiki.

5-Do you know how many spelling and grammar mistakes you just made in that statement above? Show me where are they, and how many are. I though that you have understood my words, to say the least.--Stefanomencarelli 18:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just take the very last sentence in the above reply: 1 spelling mistake (you wrote "though" instead of "thought") and a grammar/syntax mistake: "thought" is past tense, "you have" is present. I'm saying this because you specifically asked me. I could go on and on. Both John and I suggested that you propose your text on the talk pages, and get people to help. That's what you need to do. Unfortunately, the way in which you respond has resulted in driving other editors away from you, not making them willing to come beside you and work with you. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sydney

I live about 2600 mi from Sydney, but I had organised an end of year holiday so I will be in that area final week of November. If it can wait till then I'd be happy to do it - I'm a keen amateur photographer as my commons gallery demonstrates (I've taken over 7,000 shots in the last 4 years) - Another option for more prompt action would be to try the good folks at WikiProject Sydney, although if you don't get an answer there (as the page seems a bit quiet), making such a request at Australian noticeboard may get it in front of the correct pair of eyes. Orderinchaos 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'll explore those other options, but I'm also not in that much of a hurry, so if they don't work out, I'll let you know. Many thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

V-22 Osprey

Alan, we got a nice discussion at Talk:V-22 Osprey, in particular on the V-22 and autorotation. Care to jump in? Thanks. - BillCJ 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 3 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2002 airtanker crashes, 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.

--Wizardman 19:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

F-104

I made some adds to Aeritalia F-104S and some other stuff. I used MS Word to correct spelling, after proposal, see eventually herrors.--Stefanomencarelli 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

...i forget to say that i was still to rework it. Someone last night has questioned the origins of the F-104S (i forget to check who he was..) and i made some adds, since i was as well curious to know what happened at the beginnings of F-104S. I was confident to return today to the stuff published to correct something. Since the work is much, i'd suggest to not start the re-work immediatly. Those stuff needs two-three days to be totally developed, so no surprise if i add some other stuff in the meanwhile. It's better intervent after some time. For me, i am almost ended the work. Just to remember some minor details, i will eventually post them in the talk, ok?--Stefanomencarelli 12:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but Bzuk has a good point...you're putting way too much detail into these articles. Articles in an encyclopedia are supposed to be a general overview of the subject, and are not as detailed as you'd find in a magezine article or a book. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't think that 'too much details' is a sin (or is POV,or is copyviol, or is too bad written or,or,or..) in any way. If an encyclopedia can support 100 kb webpages it should support also 25 kb. It's not a sin, but the only way to add all the necessary details, that will instead forget by 'public' or never know. And i found naturally talk about the operational units, also to use it. I try to enrich encyclopedia, that's my point here, there, always. And operational units will been needed for that history (not because i am italian, but i think all italian wikiens could appreciate to know). Hell, it's not F-4 unit operators, just only a dozen. And if i am a sinner, well i am happy to be for this reason. I always do of my best, as former scout, and i am well known for my attention on details (substance rather than form, mind you). I like more Cappella sistina than Guernica, to be honest, what do you except from one that grew seening Florence's monuments?.--Stefanomencarelli 14:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here my contribution, it's difficult to fullow all, but atleast you can try: [[10]]--Stefanomencarelli 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin help

Alan, I am at my wit's end over the Image:Stategic Air Command (film).jpg Betacommand and his bot keep questioning the fair-use poster for the film page. I've asked for explanation in my reverts, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Stategic_Air_Command_%28film%29.jpg&diff=162122510&oldid=161123966 he just keeps reverting back]. I can't see anything wrong with whats on the image page, except it's not in complete template form. Can you look, and see if there's something I'm missing, since watchdogs apparently can't deign to lower themselves to explain anything to pion editors who do the actual work here, and not just have their bots stick sacred tags on everything! :) - BillCJ 23:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot was probably looking for the boilerplate text and header. I've dropped that in, should probably work fine now...feel free to drop a note if there's any further problems. Now off to upload a couple of MH-60 pics I shot yesterday.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! Here's another admin problem tokeep an eye on: ATG Javelin, with many additions by user:Avtechgroup. About the best thing is they appear to have added company pics, and released them for use, which is a good thing (assuming the tags are right)! - BillCJ 02:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

NP...those are indeed nice pics...really good of those folks to release them...wish Boeing was as forward-thinking! Anyway, I left a note over on the user's talk page, hopefully I was tactful enough to get the point across but not drive them away. Thanks for the heads up...now back to Blackhawk pics... AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Oh, how old you think your stalker is? I figure mine was at least 18, but I'm not sure if your's is 12! :)

If you could look at this diff, got someone adding a non-notable, probaly themselves, as this search seems to prove. Thanks. Oh, I'll be sending you an e-mail about another page that needs admin help. Not urgent, just annoying, and probable vandalism. - BillCJ 05:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing mine's about 14 or 15. He's got a big ego...thinks he is actually being annoying. He doesn't realize that a) I'm not going to talk to him because a banned user has no voice here, and b) it's no trouble at all to hit the rollback button (one of the best features of the admin tools!)...mere microseconds out of my day. He spends time writing his screed, and I don't even bother reading it. He's the loser here. Oh well. I'm actually getting ready to head for bed, so I'll take a look at your items tomorrow, if that's ok. I get my 412 back tomorrow! Yea! AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Another one! CHeck out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.244.141.126 . Seems to be a systematic reversion of a number on my edits. I either have another stalker, or my original one is back. Oh joy! - BillCJ 16:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He's on enforced Wikibreak until he finds another IP address. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tanker crashes, class B

Alan, my assessment was based on that of the Aviation Wikiproject Assessment. I am trying to clear a backlog of over 400 unassessed WP:Fire Service articles. Those that were assessed by other projects are getting assessed based on the previous assessment. I will review your article more thoroughly and upgrade the article/provide comments. Thanks, Daysleeper47 17:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I would have come and told you like you requested, but you've already noticed! So all I can really do is say 'I was going to, but you beat me to it' ;-). Thanks so much for your confidence in me. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the magic of watchlists! Hope all goes well! AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal

I looked in the LA Times archive and there is no mention of it. They would have loved a story like that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, thanks for checking! AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I found this from this article which links to an LA Times article that cannot be pulled up. --Born2flie 08:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you found it...I didn't think it was that far back...I only went to '73 in my NTSB inquiry. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

F-22/Typhoon

Alan, the F-22 and Typhoon pages came off block today. Looks like no one's learned their lessons yet!

I second the "Please, let's protect the pages again for a few days because we are not going anywhere here" thing. --McSly 06:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. By the IP addresses being used, it's clear to me that this is our old dogpuppet friend Wikzilla/Dufus. I'm staying out of the actual content dispute, but I will make one observation: this link makes it clear that the term is a Lockheed marketing term, rather than a generic doctrine description. I also thought it very instructive that almost all the top search hits using the term are video games that use the F-22. It's becoming more and more clear where our dogpuppet friend is getting his "facts"...and after all, we're WP:NOT a game guide, right? AKRadecki^Speaketh 07:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC) (and if you're wondering why the heck I'm editing at 12:30 am...I'm actually at work right now, with a broken helo, waiting to hear back from HQ to see if parts or a spare ship can be had tonight...it's gonna be a long night!)

Alan, how's the sick helo doing? Which one is it? - BillCJ 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The 4121, and it's still broke, but thanks for asking. They started picking up a 1/rev vertical hop from the main rotor, which typically means either a trim tab washed out or got bumped, or something's worn in the controls. I found four rod ends bearings on one blade's pitch change link/swashplate link combination that all had play...individually, they're not out of limits, but combined, it was a lot of play, which easily could have affected the track of that one blade. Just waiting for parts and the balancing equipment (hmmm...rotor track and balance would make an interesting article!). We've got the spare 222U covering right now. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Barbarians and civilized men

One of my favorites lines in Star Trek: The Original Series is from the episode Mirror, Mirror. Near the end of the episode, Kirk asks Spock why it was so easy for Spock to recognize that the four people from the alternate univers were not the Kirk and company from Spock's universe. Spock replied that it is far easier for civilized men to act as barbarians, than for barbarians to act as civilized men. So, Alan, when it comes to sock-puppets, it's pretty easy to spot the barbarians. They just can't be civilized for very long! - BillCJ 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the immortal words of Spock! And so appropriate, thanks for reminding me! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd like that! And in the words of the Squire of Gothos: Anything you might possibly say has already been taken down in evidence against you." Such is the like of a sock-puppet. The sad thing is, if he just pretended to be civil, we'd never know it was him! - BillCJ 01:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...if he pretended to, I guess we wouldn't need to to know it was him. I guess it's just hard to pretend to be something you're not. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A Bridge Too Far

Alan - I just added some air filming detail to the A Bridge Too Far (film) page - but I can't seem to get the reference to link correctly to the bottom of the page. Would U be kind enough to take a look & see if U can tell wot Ah did wrong? Tnx!

Mark Sublette 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark SubletteMark Sublette 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I'm not sure if he's available right now, so I took a look. There is no ref code in the ref section, like {{Reflist}}. I think that's your main problem. Easy thing to miss. - BillCJ 00:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for covering me, Bill! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy to Alan of BillCJ talk page: " Thanks for linking that for me... Didja read the copy? I just barely skimmed the cream off of the letter, which runs 3/4 of a page, at least! He talks about the airborne units that participated in the jump, and all kinds of marking and code details. I thought I would just began to add SOME of the data that The Battle of Britain (film) has been accorded for a LONG time... For some, reason, a Bridge has received considerably less input."

User:Mark Sublette|Mark Sublette]] 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark Sublette 01:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ring-protected rotors

Thank you! I was going to do that myself, but I was absorbed in something else at the time. I would've called it OR speculation, myself. --Born2flie 02:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What really got me was that the writer clearly doesn't have a good understanding of why blades need to lead/lag and need to flap. Anyway, once I get done with the aerial firefighting series of articles, I'll see if I can take a look at this one. I'm not an expert by any means, but I have a lot of aerdynamics resources that would be useful in improving the article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you start and I'll try and give some time to help on it. --Born2flie 03:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

EL question

Alan, could you check this addition? And the username? Doesn't seem to be more than a forum group, which is generally not allowed. Perhaps one of our Australian editors, such as Nick Dowling, will know if this is legitimate. I hate to revert something that's legitimately trying to help people, but anyway, it can be reverted if it checks out. - BillCJ 03:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone esle beat me to reverting it! Anyway, it still might be worth checking out. - BillCJ 03:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Tanker scandal article

Alan - Wow! You have gathered quite a nice little file there! I have made two slight tweaks. I will read this more thoroughly, as well. If you want help on the identities of the Hercs involved, I will be more than happy to help!

P.S. - Just added some more data to A Bridge Too Far...

Mark Sublette 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark SubletteMark Sublette 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not to worry - the Production List spells out all the ownership transfers. Also, Lars lists Reagan as being based in Oregon.

Sub*

Mark Sublette 21:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark SubletteMark Sublette 21:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reagan-owned Hercs

• C.n. 3095 USAF 56-0487, at least seven unit assignments through August 1989; at Marana, Arizona, October 1989, same April 1990; To Roy D. Reagan as N6585H, January 1991. Registered to T&G Aviation, January 1991, reregistered N120TG, March 1991. Registered to Pacific Harbor Capital Inc., February 1993, at Marana. Leased to Aero Postal, Mexico, October 1993, same April 1994, all white scheme. Reregistered N487UN, June 1994, to Pacific Harbor, in storage at Marana as of November 1994. Sold to Heavylift International, March 1995. Sold to May Ventures, GB, registered 9J-AFV, named "Tanganyika". Ops by Shabair, December 1995. Registered 9J-AFV to Chani Enterprises, Zambia, March 1997. Reregistered 9J-BTM, June 1998. I'll hunt the rest...
• C.n. 3099 USAF 56-0491, modified to DC-130A, to USN as BuNo 158299 by 1969. To MASDC, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, 2G004, by August 1979, same, June 1987. Registered to Roy D. Reagan, N9724V, October 1986, to World Wide Aeronautical Industries, Ashland, Oregon, December 1986. To Bob's Air Park, Tucson, Arizona, September 1987, registered to CZX Productions, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, August 1988, same, June 1991. At Western International Aviation salvage yard, Tucson, Arizona, June 1988, departing there January 1990, to TAAG Angola Airlines, Luanda, Angola, January 1991, damaged in landing accident, repaired. To Unitrans, (Dieter Reinhardt), still registered N9724V. In Angola, registered 9J-SLQ, March 1991, operated by Questline, Florida, for the Angolan government. Crashed on take-off from Luanda, June 10, 1991 load shifted, burned.
• C.n. 3104 USAF 56-0496, camera ship for film "The Hunters", 1958, at least four unit assignments through March 1989. Registered N8053R to Hawkins & Powers, May 1989. Registered to Roy D. Reagan, August 1989, reregistered N45R, June 1990. Registered to Aero Firefighting Service, December 1990, same March 1991; reregistered N134FF (never painted on), March 1991. Leased to Hemet Valley Flying Service, Hemet, California, July 1993, "stored, parts", August 1993. Still as N8053R, March 2000. Stored at Hemet Ryan Airfield, June 2002. Sold to International Air Response, March 2006.
• C.n. 3115 USAF 56-0507, at least seven unit assignments through March 1989. Registered N8055R to Hawkins & Powers, May 1989, then registered to Roy D. Reagan, August 1989, same October 1989. Reregistered N45S, June 1990. Registered to Hawkins & Powers, December 1990, (at Greybull, Wyoming, October 1990); stored for parts, August 1993, same December 1993. Registered N4172Q, November 1994, still wearing "AFRES 60507", October 1996. Reregistered N132HP to Pride Capital Group, September 2005.
• C.n. 3145 USAF 56-0537, modified to WC-130A, March 1967, back to C-130A, April 1971, last unit was 95th TAS, as of January 1989. Registered to Roy D. Reagan, N537TM, August 1989, then reregistered N130RR, February 1990. Registered to Pacific Harbor Capital Inc., Portland, Oregon, December 1990. To T&G Aviation, February 1991; offered for sale, March 1991. Reregistered N119TG, April 1991, (no water bomber as of February 1992), at Marana, February 1993. Leased to Aero Postal, Mexico, registered XA-RSG, 1993, then registered to Pacific Harbor, February 1993 (I can't explain the dual registration - I'll have to look further into this...). Seized in bankruptcy proceedings, July 1993, same October 1993. Registered N119TG to Pacific Harbor, December 1993. Reregistered N537UN, June 1994, stored at Pinal Air Park, Marana, Arizona, November 1994. Sold to Heavylift International, March 1995, for sale, August 1995, still at Marana, November 1998. Props and engines sold. Sold by Bush Field Aircraft Corporation to Aero Corporation, December 1998. Stored at Marana, January 1991, then at K-Tek, near AMARC, March 2000, dismantled, with wings, et cetera, nearby. Same November 2001. At Dross Metal Inc., Tucson, Arizona, scrapyard, December 2002, same March 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sublette (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Military ball

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Military ball, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. B. Wolterding 10:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. It probably should have been done long ago. I cleaned up/wikified this one a bit in my early days, but even then the notability was questionable. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AirMed International

i have no idea how to respond but to say sorry I added a completely valid entry to a section of wikipedia. yes, i do work there and i understand the rules. still, it's a valid entry and not out of self promotion but promoting safety and reputable firms in the air ambulance industry. i hope this post works. this is far and away the most confusing 'talk' i've ever come across. :) thank you though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyinggal07 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you're new and still learning your way around here, I'll reply both here and on your talk page. Your entry may be valid (I'll get to that in a moment), but it really is inappropriate for you to be writing it, in view of our conflict-of-interest rules. For instance, I'm sure you've heard about a little air ambulance company called "Air Methods". I happen to work for that company, so when it came time for someone to write an article on Wikipedia about that company, I was very careful to recuse myself from participation in the process, in order to avoid any appearance of creating bias. Wikipedia is a place to have independent information about companies, so articles written by folks that work for those companies are automatically suspected of bias.

There are a number of things that are necessary for an article about a company. First, it needs to meet our requirements for notability of the company. If the company in question meets the criteria, that notability must be notified in the article through reference to reliable sources - meaning independent, 3rd party sources, like mainstream or industry media - which meet the verifiability standards. Simply providing a link to your company's website isn't sufficient, because your company's website isn't going to be objective and crtical. Remember, this isn't a place to promote your company or give it a good image. For instance, the Air Methods article contains a reference and a link to sources that could be considered critical and unflattering to the Company. Articles also need to meet the standards of our Manual of Style.

In addition, the article needs to be written in objective, neutral, encyclopedic language. The one you added was written in promotional PR language. Some examples: the article read: "the leading air medical transport company"...who has determined it is the "leading" company? Because this is written by a company employee, it is clearly non-objective. How do you measure "leading"? It's a subjective statement, rather than a statement of fact (again, to compare, the AM article says "largest", which is a demonstrable fact based on statistics, rather than a subjective statment). Another: "AirMed offers unparalleled medical care". "Unparalleled"? No one else offers the level of care your company does? Has this been adjudged this way by an independent source? Has CAMPTS or Aeromedical Journal made such a statment that you can quote? "Chosen as air medical transport for the world-famous Mayo Clinic"...are you the only operator that flies for Mayo? Do you have independent confirmation regarding an exclusive contract? For instance, this Mayo Clinic website page doesn't even mention you, and give advice to physicians on how to pick an air ambulance service...if you were the exclusive provider, the article would likely say that. And this article talk's about Mayo's own not-for-profit air ambulances, MedAir and Mayo One...do you operate these aircraft? The article doesn't list you as the provider, and neither does your Wikipedia article. And as for DoD, are you the only company that has a DoD contract? Is there something in your contract that gives you some kind of preference over other competitors? And which DoD contract, at which DoD installation? I know for a fact that you're not the preferred provider at the 29 Palms Marine Corps base.

Your article states that you operate the "largest permanently configured ICU-equipped aircraft in the country"...that's really misleading, as your biggest aircraft is a Hawker 800. The USAF and Navy operate much bigger ICU-equipped planes, the C-9 Nightingale. And what about Aviation Bridge, which uses Gulfstreams for ICU transport? Last I checked, a Gulstream was bigger than a Hawker. "Rivaling patient care in some of the finest hospitals, AirMed jets are equipped for virtually every critical care scenario." That's pure promotional language, and has no place in an encyclopedia article.

I don't mean to discourage you from editing, but what I'm trying to show you is that your article sounds like a promotional brochure, not a sterile, factual, accurate and properly sourced overview of the company. If you're in the biz, there are still plenty of places in the encyclpedia that could really use your input, articles on medical conditions and such where your expertise would be helpful without causing conflict-of-interest issues. If you have any further questions, please let me know. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Latin Trans Air Herc

"In 1990 - 1991, T&G leased a C-130A to the Panamanian airline Trans Latin Air, which was indicted in 1994 in a Chicago federal court as one of the aviation companies used by the Cali Cartel of Colombia."

The only C-130 that Olausson lists for Latin Trans Air was c.n. 3224, 57-0517, a former RC-130A. It was registered HP1162TLN in October 1990, same August 1991.

Mark Sublette 22:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark SubletteMark Sublette 22:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AirshipMan Thank You

Thank you for your post - I was feeling a bit discouraged about all the things that I posted. I know that you're not supposed to post about yourself or your company, but I thought that maybe that applied to small start-ups, etc. that would be using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. I didn't in any way mean to use this site for anything other than informational purposes. As you stated, there is a shortage of information, specifically about our particular type of airships, and I thought "who better to inform than us?" (I guess I was wrong about that!) I kept having so many problems with the images I uploaded: I uploaded them wrong, and then would get messages about sourcing, etc., and I couldn't figure out how to cite the sources except to re-upload the same image (a total wiki rookie!). We would be happy to contribute some more information / images to the various aviation pages, and I will visit the WikiProject Aviation page and see what we can add to it (and I will be sure to cite sources!). Thank you again, AKRadecki. Airshipman 14:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)AirshipMan

Re User talk:Ioeth#Noms for deletion

Akradecki, thanks for the heads-up. I think in my haste yesterday I did not do as good of a job as I could have, and now looking back on it I'm not sure how to fix it. My beef with the articles and images created and submitted by User:Airshipman yesterday is that they (at least yesterday, haven't looked today) appear to be blatant advertising and self promotion. In summaries of the uploaded images, the user identifies themself as an employee of Airship Management Services, and only created or contributed to articles and images about the company or its founder, George Spyrou. The username itself even seems to violate WP:IU to me (e.g., Airshipman = Airship Management Services), especially when considering the user identified themselves as a representative of AMS. As much as I like the images (those blimp images are way cool) and the article, in my gut I can't help but feel that it is simply advertising. I think I definitely failed to make that point clear in my Afd/Ifd noms. I'd like to help fix this, but I'm not sure the best way to go about it. I feel that the claims that I've made in this message are valid, and should be addressed by the community, but I don't want to cause any more problems than I already have. Just so you know, AMS is an airship operator, not a manufacturer (kind of like Hertz, but for blimps) as you indicated in your message. Do you still recommend that I withdraw the noms, or should I update them with the information I've presented here? Please advise. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake regarding the manufacturing; I perused the AMS About Us page, which didn't mention it. Please disregard. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about it this morning, and have gone ahead and placed speedy keep votes on all of the outstanding Afd/Ifds. If you could please close them, Akradecki (since I understand it's recommended that Admins handle speedy keeps), I would really appreciate it. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(Ioeth...I was writing this as you were writing your message, so please disregard the parts you've already addressed above!) Thanks for writing back. I, too, feel that the article was COI, and I've explained that to the editor. I'm certainly not against spam fighting, and I've done quite of bit of summary deletions as an admin in that regard. At the same time, though, I try to not WP:BITE and I realize sometimes that the problem is simply a lack of awareness of our policies. At the same time, please keep in mind that COI editing is "strongly discouraged", not completely forbidden. The policy also states, "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest." Because of this, I've counseled the editor that their contributions are welcome for general articles relating to airships, especially since they have access to external sources, but that they shouldn't edit the article about themselves. Images, though are a different matter. Many companies, aviation and otherwise, issue press release photos, but usually retain copyright, which makes it very hard to use them here. When a company is willing to release images that we can use under a CC license, we practically rejoice. Because of the nature of the license, it works much better for them to upload directly and release the images, rather than for them to allow someone else to upload them and then have to go through the OTRS system to apply a license. And let me reiterate, you spam fighting efforts are much appreciated!! In your efforts to that end, you might find a template that I developed a while back, {{subst:User:Akradecki/coinote|article name, if applicable}} helpful in your efforts. This is included on my anti-spam campaign page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, thanks for the clarification. I appreciate you educating me and Airshipman and I can say that, at least on this end, the lesson will not be soon forgotten. I've already placed speedy keep votes on the Afd/Ifd pages I created, and left Airshipman an apology and a barnstar on his talk page; is there anything else I should do to close this matter? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification for Ioeth

Just to clarify, if it makes a difference, we DO manufacture Skyship type airships. We own the type certificates and all intellectual property. No other company / entity can build / manufacture these particular types of airships, and any company looking for repairs / replacement parts for Skyships they have purchased must do so through us. I admittedly work for the company, and, as previously stated, want only to INFORM (not advertise). We have successfully owned / operated/ built / sold airships for over 20 years within the United States and all over the world - we don't need to post on Wikipedia to promote our product (no offense). We only want to increase the amount of information out there about this particular aspect of aviation through our article on this site. Airshipman 15:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)AirshipMan

Since I have your attention...

Firstly, thanks for the barnstar, but more importantly, thanks again for your help. I had a couple of random things I wanted to bring up with you since we've started a dialog, though. I ran into the speedy keep procedure the other day when working with another author. In that section on the speedy keep page, a procedure is outlined (as if one should be following it step by step), but the fourth bullet point:

Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" instead.

is not part of the procedure, but rather pre-action instructions! I didn't hit this info until it was too late and I had already performed the preceding three steps. I started a discussion about the section on the speedy keep talk page and would value your input if you could.

I also noticed that you seem to do a lot of welcomes, which I recently started doing as well. Being a Twinkle user, I said to myself "self, there's got to be an easier way to do this; Twinkle does it with vandalism." Well, I decided to write a Twinkle inspired tool, that I called Friendly, to help with the more collaborative end of Wikipedia. Take a look at the project page, and if you could, I'd appreciate it if you could give it a try so I could get some feedback since it's so new!

Thanks again! --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, some of my editing is done on a computer running netscape which doesn't handle java well, so that pretty much stops me cold. Will keep it in mind for the future, though! AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bell 205 Photo

Glad that you liked the Bell 205 photo. I took that one of my own helicopter while fighting some fires in Ontario that summer. I always liked the way it turned out - looks very tranquil! I may have some air tanker photos. I am currently going through some old albums of 35 mm photos and scanning them for Wikipedia. I will keep an eye out for fixed wing air tanker shots. If I do find some where are they to be posted - under the aircraft type articles or another article on aerial firefighting? Ahunt 17:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on a number of aerial firefighting related articles. The main aerial firefighting is in need of a major overhaul, and as I work on the other specific articles, I've been grinding away at it in one of my sandboxes. Eventually, my plan is to have a main overview on aerial firefighting, a separate more detailed airtanker article, and a helitack article. I've been considering a separate one on the history as well, but not sure if there's enough material that would be separated out of the others. I've also considered articles on Aero Union and Hemet Valley, since they've pioneered a lot of the fixed wing techniques. I've just finished two long articles, 2002 airtanker crashes and U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal, as well as the MAFFS article, and been slowing trying to get Tanker 910 up to GA status. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - sounds ambitious! I have lots of helitack photos since that is what I used to fly in Ontario and other provinces in 1995/96. I do have a few air tanker photos, but only ground shots (ie CL 215s with spotter Cessna 337s and Cessna 310s). I can post them here to this page if you like then you can see if you want them or not. On the helicopter side let me know when you have created the article and will post some photos. Unfortunately they are mostly ground photos like the 205 one, since I was usually a bit busy to get air photos! Don't know if that helps! Ahunt 22:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That will help much! I'd be especially interested in the spotters...because they're not as "glamorous", they don't get shot as much, but they're just as important! Will definitely let you know on the helitack page. Do you read Vertical Magazine? Your 205 shot would be a shoe-in for their readers' photos section! AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• HEY! Don't fergit TBM Inc.! They were in there when I was a kid hauling hose for CDF!

Mark Sublette 23:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark SubletteMark Sublette 23:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about them, especially since their C-130A is sitting a stone's throw away from here. Other than the C-130A issues, though, I haven't found many refs to them. Any help would be appreciated!! AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hey! I shot slides when I visited Hemet Ryan in 1997, my only trip back to Calif since I moved back east in 1972. They're not digitized, but I could arrange it. Mark Sublette 23:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark SubletteMark Sublette 23:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that would be an awesome resource!! AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay - you asked and you shall receive. I have uploaded all of these and put them here. Use them as you see fit! I will probably use some elsewhere in Wikipedia - like the S-58T pix on the S-58 page.

- Ahunt 02:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fire Fighting Gallery

• 
  CL 215 and Cessna 337 fire detection aircraft in Dryden ON 1995
• 
  CL 215 and Cessna 310 birddog aircraft in Kenora ON 1995
• I just like this photo for dramatic effect! Dryden ON 1995
  I just like this photo for dramatic effect! Dryden ON 1995
• 
  Bell 205A-1 and helitack crew ready to go (the winds were gusting to 50 knots!) Sioux Lookout ON 1995
• 
  S-58T with PT-6 twinpack for power and bambi bucket, near Dryden ON 1995
• 
  S-58T as Helitack 169, ready to head to a project fire, Dryden 1995
• 
  Ontario Ministry of Natural resources deHavilland DHC 2 Mk 3 Turbo Beavers on amphib floats in Dryden ON in 1995
• 
  Bell 205A-1 and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources firefighters working on Fire 141 in 1995
• 
  Bell 204B (upgraded to "C") and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources firefighters working on Fire 141 in 1995.

Wow...those are awesome, and will be a big help! Was the 205 a A++? AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad that will help you. The 205 is my old Huey from that season and the next one too, it was a plain 205A-1 at that point - still had the 205 main rotor system. Ahunt 11:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again - I found a few more photos that I thought you might want to use on those articles and so I have added them to the gallery above! - Ahunt 16:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jim Bede BLP vs 3RR

I'd appreciate it if you can address my concerns [11]. I feel I've gone well beyond what is required for BLP violations, by documenting my concerns and waiting for responses. Thanks for your time. --Ronz 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about images

Hello Akradecki. Thank you again for all your help and for deciding to keep my page. I have been compiling some more information to add to the page and updating information on others pages as well. I have a question about two of the images on my page. They still say that they are proposed for deletion, but I have supplied all the sourcing information. Is this deletion message something I can take off myself from the page? Or does an administrator have to do it? I want to make sure I do things the right way. Thanks again for your help. Airshipman 15:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)AirshipMan

Removing the templates from the captions is something that you're welcome to do, but I just went ahead and did it since I was there. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		With thanks!
		Thanks for participating in my RfA, which closed successfuly. I leave you with a picture of the real Blood Red Sandman! Note his 'mop' is slightly deadlier than mine! - - Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome...and if you ever need help finding your way around the new tools and procedures, let me know! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alan. I will bear you in mind as another I can turn to if I get stuck with the whole admin thing. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Stefo and thumb sizings

ALan, have you been following this latest from stepho? Whats next? Rewriting the NPOV guidelines? :) - BillCJ 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent article

Alan, would you look at Atlanta's second airport, and see what you think? It was created a couple of weeks ago. It is a genuine issue in the Atlanta and Chattanooga areas. I'm not quite sure about the title, I'd prefer something Like Second airport proposals for Metro Atlanta, but maybe not as wordy. THe current title is a bit misleading, since since there is no second major airport as yet. THanks. - BillCJ 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What companies?

What companies do you want Hercules histories for?

Sub*

Mark Sublette 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark SubletteMark Sublette 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's not too inconvenient, the original recipients, Hemet Valley, Aero Union, TBM, T&G and then Pacific Harbor Capital, who seem to have received some of the transferred aircraft. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm off to South Carolina in the hour for Homecoming at Clemson. I'll try to get to these next week. Mark Sublette 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal

On 13 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal, 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.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

More text dumps by Stefo

Alan, can something be done to stop this? Would we permit anyone else to carry on like this unabated? I'm ready to file an RFC(or whatever is appropriate) to stop this. He's banned on It.Wiki for a reason, and he (supposedly) speaks the language there! Please help!!!! - BillCJ 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Reverted sloppy text-dump additions by Stefanomencarelli - you have been asked by admins to have your submissions previwed BEFORE adding them to (vaguely treatening, do you find?)

The foolishness end here, Steph (decisely treatening, what's that? A threat for undisciplinate contributors?)

BillBC in fact is violating the meanings of GFDL. He pratically forbids to me to edit in wikipedia.en. He don't cares to improve articles, he merely delete my contributions. What i have done in 2 or 3 hours, he deletes in 2 or three seconds. It's unacceptable.

I have already done what he 'suggested': i did this with CF-104 and B-50, do you see my contributions in talk pages? The stuff removed, to be fair, should posted there to be reworked. But not, our friend not cares about. I (for my own initiative, not because someone has suggested to me to do so) posted there the stuff, and nobody cared to 'rework' that and then re-post it. So what do i should care to post in discussion pages, when there are, since one month, edits still not 'accepted' by Wikiboss? What i should wait by 5 millions wikipedians? One year, before someone accept to rework them? What's benefit for wiki?

Let me say, this last stuff about Aeritalia G-91 is simply ridicolous. There are guys like R. Sunset Smr or Tabletop that made corrections and not asks nothing, that's Wiki spirit to me. There are others like Bill that simply not cares about to consider: 'do this edit contributes to enlarge wiki-knowledge?' They (he) roll-backs and not saves nothing. In a decent system you would put in problematic users or block for vandalism Bill, not treat me. Even if 5 kb edits have 50 herrors, it's not a reason to trow out the child with dirty water. That's precisely what Bill does. And finally let me remark one thing: Wikipedia is not E. Britannica, a thing that wiki.pride and arrogance not accepts. We are volounteers not professionists ,and perhaps while we work gratis there is someone that make money for himslef with our work. Everyone that works for wiki should be handled with care just because this. --Stefanomencarelli 09:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephano, I have little sympathy, because I gave you detailed suggestions on how to handle this, and you haven't followed it. I said to put your proposed text on the talk page, and then leave a message for me so that I'd know it was there. Instead, the first time, you put it into an extensive article and then let me know, and after I corrected the grammar and eyntax, you removed my corrections and put additional improper English in its place, with a note telling me it wasn't ready for me yet, to give you a week or two. That's the last you wrote to me. Of course your material on the talk pages isn't getting attention...you didn't follow directions! AKRadecki^Speaketh 12:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

---

This not means that he has the right to literally block my edits. The problem is that: is he allowed to do so? If yes, what about GFDL freedom to edit? Is it revoked if the editor is not so proficient to properly write?

If not, why he is untouchable when he acts so? Let me know: WHY i should be censored sistematically? On what basis?

That's simple. You edit my previous message and show me how many herrors there are.

Then, go with trust to G-91 and tell me, where was the necessity to rollback even NATO requirements? Just tell me where and what was the amount of horridous herrors.--Stefanomencarelli 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: i found laughable to be accused to write bad, while my simpatic oppositors cannot even write my name correctly: Stephano, Stepho and so on. Perhaps is simpatic, but i start to see something denigratory or silly in this manner, expecially if made by someone that not appreciate my herrors.--Stefanomencarelli 17:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not understanding you... what's a "herror", "simpatic", "oppositor"? I can make out "denigratory" and "expecially", but you've really gotta start using real English words, my friend, if you want to communicate on the English wikipedia. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Helitack

Hey great article. I did go through it and made a few small copyedit changes. I will see if I can dig up my old books and find some refs on what we used to do - the official version! Glad that you found the photos of use!

- Ahunt 21:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I did find a couple of useful refs and added some text there - see whether you think it improves the article or not. I also added a user box to the talk page. Maybe I should make one up for helicopter mechanics, too?

- Ahunt 19:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad that you liked the stuff I dredged up for this article - I thought the alert levels and the equipment lists added a bit of "drama" to the article!

- Ahunt 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-promotion?

Alan, I've removed the entry "Jim Pfitzer, Storyteller" from notable persons on the Chattanooga, Tennessee page several times in the past few months, usually by an IP user. Today, an new entry was added per this diff, with www.jimpfitzer.com in the edit summary. Appears to be self-promotion. To my knowledge, he's not a notable person in Chattanooga per Wiki standards, but can you double-check me on this, and perhaps contact him about policy?. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've dropped a warning along with a welcome on his talk page. I'm gonna assume for a moment that he just isn't familiar with our rules. I'll watchlist the page, though, but if I miss it, drop me a note. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

THanks! - BillCJ 00:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Stalko italiano

Alan, your friend from Renton is now trying to corrupt Stefo. I don't remember who reads Italian around here ((Askari Mark?), but we might ought to have it checked out. - BillCJ 00:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...this could get amusing interesting. I had meant to dig into Reston resources today, but had other things to deal with. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

XF-12 Rainbow

Alan, we've got continuing unsourced text-dumps from this diff through this one. Started with a registered user, then picked up with an IP with a history of vandalism. This is just text dumping here, and a possible copy-vio. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Company Profiles

Alan, You edited my single external links entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amgen. How is that spam? #1. Yahoo Finance Company Profiles are listed on 1000+ wikipedia entries and we were listed on one. And you deleted it. Not to mention the Hoover's, Zoominfo, and Google Finance profiles Did you ever think that diversity would be a good idea on here? Yahoo's Executive Profiles are rarely updated. We provide more detailed information on these companies. We recently decided to make our company profiles free in order to benefit other people. Most people pay for this data. #2. Don't make it seem like I am the bad guy here. As if I am trying to steal traffic from wikipedia or something... There are wikipedia entries in which data has been taken from our website and loaded it into Wikipedia. And you don't hear me complaining. Tblueski

It just wasn't a single addition to Amgen, you dropped similar links on a bunch of articles. That's called "spamming" around here. Please read our spam and external links guidelines. On top of that, you're clearly editing contrary to our conflict of interest policy. I'll reiterate...this is not the place to promote your website and its services. No one is accusing you of being the bad guy, just the new guy who's unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. You would only be seen as a bad guy if you thumbed your nose at them and tried to circumvent them. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Typhools are back!

[Here we go again!! And just when we'd about had a consensus too! Can we try for a month semi-p this time? I guess this will keep up until the high schools let out for the next break. Sheesh! - BillCJ 06:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a citation that clearly counters the assertion that stealth compromises performance. I won't put it into the Typhoon entry because the entry is about the Typhoon and not the F-22.

The F-22 is highly maneuverable, at both supersonic and subsonic speeds. The F-22's thrust vectoring nozzles allow the aircraft to turn tightly, and perform extremely high alpha angle of attack maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (or J-turn), Pugachev's Cobra,

As for the stealth remark I am just adding the part in the citation they used that puts it into context. Surely there can be no debate about what is being said there.

If you want to go ahead and protect the article go ahead. It just detracts more from it's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.60.50 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not debating the content, I'm addressing how you went about it. You may have great information, but if you don't follow process, that detracts from the credibility. It comes across as just your opinion, and a person who removes cited information and adds uncited opinion has no credibility. The point, then, is to get you to provide both clear citations for what you're asserting, and to give a justification on the talk page that makes reasonable sense. If you do that, then no one is going to contest your edits, and your edits will be seen to have good credibility. These are not unreasonable requests, but what seems to happen with a lot of IP editors is that they insist that they're right, everyone else is worng, everyone should just trust their additions with no citations, and they thumb their nose at our process, without realizing that it's the process that eventually vets the credible information from the non-credible. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Tanker 910

No need to relist it, I'll have a look and re-review when I get a chance. All the best. The Rambling Man 07:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Of G.91, CF-104, B-50 etc.

I am starting to be really bored by the forced confination that wikipedians like XX and YXS (no name can be done, it's wiki.oz, all is well and good and love flows like rivers), so i would ask to you to start to review these pages. I did like basically you suggested, moving stuff in discussion page, but i have yet to see any concrete interest by someone. Today i have re-minded this to YXS, as usual he simply deleted the message from his talk and nothing else. This is more and more unacceptable, insulting and depressing, and next days i would start to post these if they last without any interest. I am very amused to waste money and time to make decent works and nobody cares about, except to revert them. If wikipedia means still something it's time that someone ends to just act to censure my efforts. I did my parts, so it's time that the 'others' make their, right?

Regards. --Stefanomencarelli 19:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I will go take a look at them later today. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Stefo, you didn't "re-mind" me of anything constructive whatsover. It was just your usual unintelligable persecution-for-no-reason rant. I'm glad to see you are at least trying to follow AKR's and John's advice. I hope you can keep following it. - BillCJ 19:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Make me a pleasure, mr.Bill, don't talk to me nothing about 'costructive'. I am still more 'constructive' of your rollbacks. It' really amusing. And finally, start to learn my name. PS. It's really strange that you do not understand what i say, seen that i understand clear (not agree) your edits. Strange, to say the least..--Stefanomencarelli 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Stefonaomanceralli, why are still you adding info without knowing how to source, as on the AgustaWestland EH101 page? This is WHY you've been asked to post on the talk pages first, so we can help you. But when you just dump in your texts, you make work for the rest of us. Once in a while would be OK, but you do this several times a week, if not per day! Nothing you are adding is so important it must go in NOW. In addition, when you add without sources, we cannot correct your mistakes even when we WANT to. You added a date of "132 june" to the EH101 page - did you mean 12, 13, or 23? I have know way of knowing. I know it's easy to make mistakes with numbers, but you make so many mistakes that we cannot keep up with you. If you want to know how to add references, all you have to do is ask John or Alan/AKR (who does not get upset with me for writing a short version of his name, since I always forget how to spell Radecki/Radeci/Radeki without looking). They will be happy to help you out. They can also fix the references if you put it on the talk page first, and you can see how to do it there. Please show some consideration for the work you are causing the rest of us - many of us are busy, and can't always stop to correct your mistakes, so it's easier to just take them out completely. Please TRY to be flexible and adaptive,a nd you will find your experience much better here. - BillCJ 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is stated that every info posted without an immediate source will be deleted in one minute as happened there? WHERE? I cannot for unknow reasons to post sources, i had written this to make clear that it was just a tecnical problem. NO. After one minuts those info gone. EHi-EHi-EHi-EY. Am i perhaps a criminal to be special observed? What's this, where is stated that everything i write must be rewieved in one minuts? Where is the need to delete a contr just because an herror of digitation? Where is the collaboration? You can asked this to me, presuming good faith. You simply deleted. Even few bytes of contributions.

IT's really too much for me. I call ARBCOM and let's see if they will allow you to continue to rollback me at will. And still you mistaken'casually' my name.

X Akardercki: i wuold expect a litte more effort that delete some lines and you know what i am sayng. OTOH, to handle a guy like me as idiot and troll it's not a personal insult or attack?--Stefanomencarelli 10:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what the heck is "EHi-EHi-EHi-EY"?? I didn't have time to do editing last night, and what I removed were personal attacks that you made. If I see any more personal attacks, I will start blocking you. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

EHEHEHEH-EY was not directed to you, it was a 'joke' related to EH101 (page)-HEY (=what are you doing??), do you understand? Free to take part or not to G.91 page, of course. But please, don't be surprised if i, after some time, will re-start editing in main this stuff. --Stefanomencarelli 16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Founding documents vandalism

Alan, I've been watching the Thirteen Colonies and Articles of Confederation pages, among other founding document pages, for a few weeks now, and it seems the only edits being made are vandalism and reversions of vandalism, several times a day. Could we request a break from this for a week or two? Thanks. - BillCJ 19:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ARBCOM

Alan, please check [12]. I would be curious to know what this is about? FWIW Bzuk 13:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

See my comments there. I've also let User:John know. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To your attention:

To Akra:

Well, first of all, in wiki.it i was blocked and not banned. Second, you continue to accuse me of Copyviol, a thing that NOBODY has ever proof even in wiki.it after one and half year of 'service'. And God knows if someone has wanted to proof this. No way, i am basically incapable to make such jokes to someone else, and i do not need to make copyviols. I repeat to you too what i already said to you other times: i challenge the rest of world to found where i make copyviols. Period. I don't have to fear nothing about this issue.

Second, the thing had raised this is related to the kindly attenctions that swiftly Bill and Bzuk have paid to my *tiny contributions* in EH101 and F-86. Just because i had some datas at the hands and thinked 'well, nothing happens with G.91, then i will add some stuff to these pages: who will be worried for half kb of contributes?'. Wrong. The next morning one was debated, the other deleted because 'lacks of sources'. I have stated that i was temporaney uncapable to post them. Kindly, instead to trow gasoline on fire, can Bill or Bzuk ask to me sources? Bzuk has even questioned datas on F-86 'after checked them' while i, 'after checked them' in the Web have swiftly found two site matching my numbers. Strangely enough, i'd say.

So Akra: agreements are fine, but if you get a look on indian reserves, you'll realize that such 'agreements' works only if both parts acts in accourd. It's not what i see about. When agreement are respected just by one side, it's more similar to apartheid. And the mere fact that BillBC is not present here to discuss (just as he have always done: no discussion, just rollbacks) speaks a volume.--Stefanomencarelli 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Stefanomencarelli: I was asleep, actually. I'll spend the rest of the day working on my ARBCOM response, assuming I can find the direct link to the discussions, so this will be my only response to you outside of ARBCOM today. Also, I left a lengthy explanation of my EH101 edits in the section above, and yet you go back and add the Canadian info again, when it is covered elsewhere. I've removed that info twice before you started adding your info, but of course you take it personally. Note: if you keep defaming User:BillBC, he may well join the ARBCOM against you. - BillCJ 16:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

RMS Republic

While researching the related ship article SS City of Everett, I found quite a bit of commentary and criticism concerning the sinking of Republic, particularly related to her Captain's repeated refusal of offers of assistance, ostensibly to save money. I see that you did quite a bit of work on this article; would you be interested in trying to incorporate info about this, or shall I take a stab at it? Sources are here and here, although the latter is third party. Maralia 17:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maralia...thanks for dropping me the note...it's really refreshing to see such consideration paid. Feel free to go ahead and take a stab at it, as most of my time right now is taken up with admin duties and work on another project I'm involved in. However, if you need help, I might have time tomorrow to put some work into it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yankee Roo

I've seen that you've shown interest in the situation related to Image:Yankee Roo.jpg, the logo of eBay seller YankeeRoo.com, a.k.a. Yankee Roo Australia. I've added further explanation of why "Yankee Roo" was deleted over at User talk:Yankeeroo#Nonsense of Yankee Roo so that you could get a better sense of context. —Tokek 20:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

UAV proposed move

Alan, I saw you have worked on the UAV page before, so I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the move proposal there. Thanks. - BillCJ 08:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)