User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Ads	file info – show another – #0

Contents 1 Smile 2 Deletions 3 In re "shoot the spammers on sight" 4 Company Overview Deleted 5 Instructions for new Wikipedia editors 6 Campion Higher Secondary School, Tiruchi 7 Kawasaki Ki-61 8 Comparison of e-commerce solutions 9 Boink! :) 10 Battle of Washita River-related user conduct RfCs 11 Aaron Laffey 12 C-5 Galaxy 13 Request, if it can be done 14 More rendition bird poop 15 Dispute 16 Gameel Al-Batouti's article dispute 17 OK 18 Apologies 19 Stefano Mencarelli 20 SR-71 21 Marcel du Plessis 22 Your comment at RfD 23 User:24.118.153.134 24 Thanks! 25 BWSSB 26 KidGameRatings article deletion 27 Deletion John Daly's Murder Rock Golf and Country Club 28 Re: DYK question 29 Requested move at Kyiv 30 Heritage Home Magazine 31 Battle of Washita River 32 Did you know... 33 Custerwest 34 Mark Levin 35 Adopt me PLEASE 36 ARRGGGHHH!!! 37 SS Suevic 38 Harassment 39 15K 40 CHI 41 Amelia vandal back again 42 Martin XB-51 43 Orient Thai Airlines 44 Custerwest's links 45 Thanks! 46 More thanks 47 Effectiveness 48 Just Wondering... 49 Tvtrip

Archives

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

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!

[edit] Smile

Wow...what a pleasant surprise on a rather sad day. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

Earlier today, you speedy deleted the article EMILY's List Australia. This is one of the most significant feminist organisations in Australia - hell, it's one of the most notable political organisations in Australia. You also deleted EXIT (Australia), which is a very high-profile national pro-euthanasia group, run by our equivalent of Jack Kevorkian.

I realise that these appear to have been wrongly tagged by User:ExtraDry, but as an administrator, you're supposed to have the judgement to double check speedy deletion taggings made by others. Both of these articles are far from new, have been edited by numerous editors, and have so much source information it would not be hard to write a featured article about either. There is not a chance either of them would get anything but a (quite probably unanimous) keep vote if they were nominated on Articles for Deletion. Please be more careful with your speedy deletions in future. Rebecca 08:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca, as an admin yourself, you should know that CSD A7 requires an assertion of notability. Neither of these articles contained that at the time they were deleted. EMILY's List Australia stated simply that it was the equivalent to a PAC in the US. There are zillions of those, almost all of which are non-notable. So if this one was so notable, why did it not have any refereces? I see it's been greatly expanded, that's good, but keep in mind the criteria...an assertion of notability. Neither of them had any references that established notability. EXIT (Australia) still doesn't, in fact your description above says more than the article does. As far as the articles were concerned, they appeared simply as non-notable political groups. Also, remember that it is the contributor's responsibility to provide the refrences and assertions of notability, not the admin reviewing the CSD. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As an administrator, you're expected to use some judgement with these things, not to "shoot on sight". Both the articles made clear that they were national organisations founded by notable people who also had their own articles. Would it have been too much work to do a quick Google and to discover that they were both, indeed, very notable, despite the fact that the current articles were stubs? What you did was just downright slack. Rebecca 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In re "shoot the spammers on sight"

I saw your "where's the letter?" post and wondered if this Corporate Vanity Policy Enforcement post is what you were looking for. — Athaenara ✉ 12:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's the one! Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

YaY! You're welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 13:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Company Overview Deleted

I was trying to reference our Wikipedia entry for our company, Anonymizer Inc., but the post was deleted. I do not understand why a company overview was deleted?? It was simply there to provide background on our 10 year old organization. Could you please provide me with an explanation as to why this happened and what I can do to correct this mistake? thanks - Jason

I think I vaguely remember this one, but a search of Anonymizer doesn't pull up the deletion log. What was the article actually called? Also, please check out our conflict of interest guidelines. It is probably not appropriate for you to be editing an article on your company. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service nor a place to promote your company, even if it's just an overview. We're an encyclopedia, and entries about companies have to demonstrate a certain level of notability. You should also be familiar with our notability guidelines for corporations. If the article didn't clearly demonstrate compliance with that guideline, it is most likely the reason it was deleted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, found it, restored it and sent it to AfD to get wider input on the deletion. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions for new Wikipedia editors

I was wondering why so many editors don't give a source for information they add to Wikipedia, and why so many stub articles have an external link section that was apparently created as a reference section. I think part of the answer is in Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial. I glanced through them, trying to view the information from a complete newcomer's perspective. I saw a few things that might be contributing to some problems in Wikipedia.

• Introduction "anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better." Lots of newcomers and anons make test edits on that page, and source/reference information is notably lacking from their edits. Not even a little note in parentheses saying "I got this from my history book". Sometimes an inline link, but rare. It might be worth seeing if a ==Notes and references== section with {{Reflist}} or <references/> can be maintained on that page as a reminder. Plus maybe a page header CITE YOUR SOURCES.
• Learn more about editing Thinking like an eager new editor, I went straight to Read about how to create your first article. The main points tell me to be bold, but they don't tell me to cite my references. In the second bullet in the second section I glance at this:

Good research and citing your sources. Articles written out of thin air are better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying large amounts of the text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism.

My impression from that is that research and citations are purely optional, the most important thing is to write about what I know about. I can always leave the verification problem to someone else... that's "better than nothing." I figure I don't have to do any real research to contribute to Wikipedia, because I can just write about what I know about.

• Explore Wikipedia is my next stop as an aspiring editor. I've already looked around Wikipedia a bit and seen the articles, but I'm curious about who writes Wikipedia. This is text-heavy, but I glance at the first couple of paragraphs...

Volunteers do not need any formal training before creating a new article or editing an existing article. The people who create and edit articles in Wikipedia come from countries all around the world and have a wide range of ages and backgrounds. Anyone who contributes to this encyclopedia is called a "Wikipedian".

It is Wikipedia policy to add to the encyclopedia only statements that are verifiable, and not to add original research. The Wikipedia style guide encourages editors to cite sources. Sometimes Wikipedians do not follow these policies because they forget or because they are not aware of the policy, and until citations are supplied, readers of the article cannot verify the content in question.

That's pretty boring. I want to WRITE. But I guess first I'd better glance at the...

• Tutorial

• Front page welcomes me to make edits
• Editing explains Show preview and Edit summary Some of that might not make sense to me if I'd already created a Wikipedia username and started messing with my user preferences, but I get the drift.
• Formatting Hmmm. Right. Good to know.
• Wikipedia links I spot "When to link" and read "The easiest way to learn when to link is to look at Wikipedia articles for examples. If you're trying to decide whether to make a link or not, ask yourself "If I were reading this article, would the link be useful to me?" Usually link the first, and only the first, occurrence of a word/term in the article, that does not have an implictly understood definition." Being a new editor, I don't quite follow that last sentence. I barely notice the lead sentence "Linking Wikipedia articles together is very important. These easily-created links allow users to access information related to the article they're reading and greatly add to Wikipedia's utility." I notice I have to use 2 square brackets to link to another page. I never get as far as reading about categories.
• External links is wonderfully clear and simple -- I can DO that!!
• Talk pages. I'm not interested in talking right now, I just want to edit. But I glance at this.
• Keep in mind. This sounds boring, but I click on it and glance at it. Editorial policies... Subject matter... Neutral point of view... blah blah blah... I never really notice another messaage, because it's pretty far down:

Citing sources

Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References". If any websites would be of particular interest to a reader of an article, they should be listed and linked to in an "External links" section, and books of particular interest should be listed in a "Further reading" section, but only if they were not used as sources for the article. Citations help our readers verify what you've written and find more information.

Carefully hidden away is something of major importance to the integity of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute."

Based on this introduction and tutorial for new editors, I'm not surprised that there are thousands of unsourced and poorly sourced articles in Wikipedia -- and many short articles and stubs with "External links" sections and no citations. Wikipedia is only as strong as its editors, and new editors are often guided by Wikipedia's Introduction and Tutorial. 65.78.213.45 03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...some interesting points to ponder! AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campion Higher Secondary School, Tiruchi

Why was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campion Higher Secondary School, Tiruchi result in a Keep? Absolutely no notability is established anywhere. Corpx 19:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Because a) consensus was to keep it (four keep comments, one delete commetn), and b) secondary schools are generally considered inherently notable. If this had been a high school in the US or the UK, there'd been a large, loud statement of this. Just because it's in another country does not diminish this. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There were 2 delete votes - just that the second one was not bolded due to formatting issues. As User:Alansohn said on my talk page, there is no inherent notability for schools anywhere. Corpx 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are 3 delete votes, if you count the nominator Corpx 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, even then "no consensus" defaults to a keep. As for no inherent notability for secondary schools...methinks you haven't spent much time around AfD. If you disagree still, that's fine, take it to WP:DRV. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Campion Higher Secondary School, Tiruchi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Corpx 01:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kawasaki Ki-61

Alan, could you look at Kawasaki Ki-61 page? Our Italian friend has dumped improperly-sourced text into the article. He is balking at my assumption that, because it's so well-written compared to his posts and other contributions, that it might be a verbatim text copy. WIth the language propblem, I an't be certian he really understnads my objections here, and thinks I'm just accusing him of stealing. We can't just copy copyrighted material, even with a source - it has to be rewritten. At least that is my uderstnading of WIki policy,and what I was taught in school when writing papers. Am I wrong on this? - BillCJ 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. That was certainly a very suspect-looking edit. Too bad his edit summary wasn't as well-written! AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of e-commerce solutions

Why'd you delete it? I loved that page man!

Because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of ecommerce solutions. Remember, it's not a vote, it's a discussion of how the article fits our guidelines and policies. After analysis of the discussion, discounting the comments without guideline/policy support, the "article" which is really isn't, failed to meet our requirements. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boink! :)

[edit] Battle of Washita River-related user conduct RfCs

As an administrator who has been involved with the long-term disputes about the article Battle of Washita River (which is still under full protection), I want to inform you of the two related user-conduct RfCs that have now been certified:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Custerwest

Thanks for your past efforts in trying to help us deal with the disputes about this article. --Yksin 20:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I read through the RFCs briefly, and was impressed with their comprehensiveness and clarity. Good luck! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI, a related article RfC has been initiated at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Request for comment. We could really use some comments from people outside the dispute. Thanks again. --Yksin 02:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Whoa, I've been at this all day now... think I better go eat. --Yksin 03:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Laffey

I noticed you were the last admin to delete Aaron Laffey because it met CSD. Laffey has now been called up to the majors, so can you please unprotect this page from creation?►Chris Nelson 14:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done! Just make sure that the article clearly describes his notability. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to edit it and it says it's still protected.►Chris Nelson 18:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, after I removed the title from WP:PT I forgot to purge that page's cache. It should work now. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C-5 Galaxy

Alan, the C-5 Galaxy has been hit a number of times this week by what a appears to be a single user with two distinct ranges of dynamic IPs. Examples are here and here. Can you semi-protect the page for a week or so? Thanks. - BillCJ 19:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also, see my reply about the Kawasaki edit war on the project talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request, if it can be done

Alan, could you look at North American Union, and see if, A) you can retrieve the page, and put it in a sandbox on my userspace. B) I'd also like to see the edit history and users, if that's possible. There was an IP continually adding info to the North American Monetary Union page last week, and I'd be curisous to see if he edited that page too, and if the protection of the NAU page preceded his dumping text in the other article. It would be ironic in that I suggested a North American Union page would be more suitable for his comments! I am interested in the topic in theory, and if I can put together a good, well-source article covering all POVs in a NPOV manner, I'd like to do that, and the reapply to have the title unproteceted (howver that is done). Just the text would suffice if that is all you are able to retrieve. You can put in it User:BillCJ/Sandbox/NAU - NAU would be better than the full title, as some over-eager editor or admin might assume I'm trying to avoid the title block, or planning to recreate the page as-is! Thanks. - BillCJ 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• I just found North american union. Would be interesting to see how close this is to what was AFDed, and if the creator is trying to avoid the block. DOn't worry abaout retrieving the other text, jsut do what you need to to see if this is block avoidance. I'll copy what is here now, and use that as my starting point. Thanks again. - BillCJ 03:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Beware of flying sand...I just dumped the text on to your sandbox page, and the history on to the sandbox's talk page. I would strongly suggest touching base with Tom harrison on this matter as well, since he's the admin that appears to have protected the title against recreation. Someone had tried to recreate it already after the AfD, and he redeleted it as recreation of deleted material. I don't see anything in the AfD that would prejudice its recreation if the AfD concerns could be met, but I'd suggest talking with him, tell him your intentions, and invite him to review the material. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will, and I'll have him look at North american union too, if he hasn't sen it already. Thanks for retrieving the old article - it's actually MUCH better that what is currently at North american union, which looks like it's based TOTALLY on Joe Corsi's book. In addition, it is highly POV. I'll be looking into getting doing an AFD on it if someone else doesn't beat me to it. THanks for the Edit list - the IPs of the person I was looking for is not on the list, but anyway! Thanks again! - BillCJ 03:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NP...we've been edit-conflicting...and I've already dropped Tom a note, so you might want to follow up there. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More rendition bird poop

Hey Alan - - - I've been plugging in more data on Tepper, Pegasus, rendition aircraft, et al...

Mark Sublette 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

Hey, it's nice meeting you! I'm enjoying working with you on the dispute; it's always good to find level heads in these things..! – Dreadstar † 05:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gameel Al-Batouti's article dispute

Akradecki, you posted this on my talk page after I retagged the article as {{totallydisputed}}:

You seem to still be insisting on tagging this article, even though it has been explained to you that the tag is inappropriate. You are free to believe that the cause of the disaster as determined by the NTSB is wrong, however your POV belief does not qualify as a factual assertion that the biographical article is not neutral. Please stop adding the tag, or your edits will be considered disruptive.

But have you read my post on the article's talk page about my reasons before posting this? Because it seems to me that you dont even understand why am I retagging the article as {{totallydisputed}} over and over again. So to make a long story short I'm not tagging it because I disagree with the cause of disaster determined by the NTSB, I'm doing this because to my opinion this article is missing the Egyptian disagreement on the cause of disaster determined by the NTSB. So please read my post if you havent already, and please inform me about the appropriate action that should be done. Thank you. ñÅñÑü^Talk 06:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read your post, and that is not a reason to tag the whole article. You just said that your concern is only with one narrow area. So, read up on the NTSB and the ECAA reports from a technical point of view, and add factual material that supports what you think is missing from the article. Just make sure it's factual, NPOV and properly cited. And keep it brief...this article isn't about the crash or the controversy. That's in a different article. Also make sure that your material is based on fact, not speculation. You might want to read the ECAA objections to the NTSB assertions, then read the NTSB responses. In the areas of mechanical failure in the tail components, the NTSB actually listened to the ECAA (despite media assertions to the contrary) and in a very detailed manner, tested the mechanical failure theories. It's quite interesting reading, if you're into technical stuff. However, general stuff like "he wouldn't have done that" or "an Egyptian couldn't have done that" is speculation and is not based in demonstrable fact. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok Akradecki, I know this is becoming very boring but I want to ask you something, I am convinced now that the Factual Accuracy of the article is not disputed because it is based on facts, but is it neutral or does it deserve just a {{npov}} tag until the Egyptian Disagreement section is created !!! Because this article contains one sided information and doesn't contain the Egyptian POV. ::

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.

I just want to thank you for your patience on my little experience on Wikipedia, but believe me I'm just trying to do the right thing. ñÅñÑü^Talk 08:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Al-Batouti's article, or the incident's article? AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Gameel Al-Batouti's article dispute not the incident. ñÅñÑü^Talk 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the problem is that the Egyptian disagreement is based on technical aspects of the accident investigation and so that content should be in the incident article, not the article about Gameel. At most, a statement that says something like "The Egyptian Civil Aviation Authority disputes the cause of the crash, blaming technical problems, rather than any action of Al-Batouti". Would a statement like that satisfy you? AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes It would be acceptable. That way the reader gets the message and forms his own opinion about the man. ñÅñÑü^Talk 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you AKRadecki at last we reached a solution. ñÅñÑü^Talk 00:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK

Obvousely, all the guilth is mine. Obviousely your policies allows you to delete all i write because 'original thinking' is not allowed, and interpretations of every policy is adapted to this o that one as holy war is called.

Well, now i have discovered that Bzuk, your goodfellow friend, has rollbacked all i wrote about Reggiane Re.2001. Since i wrote pratically stuff WELL KNOWN AND DEBATED BY OTHER AUTORS, and i have cited the source of every information, so my dear friend, give me the reasons WHY these are rollbacked. Bzuk continues with its attacks to everything i wrote even for the most silly reason (as 'it's not important' issue). This is problematic or i miss something? This is worsening the Wiki articles or i miss something? This is a vandalism made by him or because he is an admin he made only justice acts?

Since i have enough of him, i wuould discuss his manners in a place in wich i can effectively make worth to my reasons. If i cannot, this is a blatalant unjustice made on me and every contributor that even in good faith is bited by some burocrats. And as my ban in wiki, well if you allow me, i don't rate you a judice of my action there.--Stefanomencarelli 12:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can clearly see why he rolled your back, and I just rolled back your most recent changes because you removed important information without reason, and, unless I missed something, you added a bunch of information without references. Also, and this isn't the sole reason but it's important, your English grammar and spelling really needs some work, and what you added was almost unreadable. This encyclopedia is expected to have a professional-grade of English. I don't mean to offend you, but your writing simply isn't there. I would strongly suggest that you propose text changes on the talk page and get input from other project members who can make sure that the material is factual, it's cited, it's supported by the citations, and it's grammatically correct. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You have rollbacked my version with the usual, silly justifications. Now i am not joking: this is vandalism whetever you says. And i will acted on you as you deserve.On problematic users page.--Stefanomencarelli 13:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring my edits up for review...I have nothing to hide. As an admin, I try to be as transparent and explanatory as possible for whatever I do. My recommendation still stands: propose your text on the talk page first, and get others to help you with it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As Stefanomencarelli has not seen fit to inform you, you are being discussed here. --John 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Hey Akradecki, I wanted to thank you again for all the help getting some movement going on Battle of Washita River. And also to apologize to you for snapping at you re: the plagiarism question. This has been a matter of recent concern for me after it was discovered that a lengthy quote from a P.D. source had been placed in the article (by HH) in the past, sourced but without quotation marks. Essentially, it was the same thing Custerwest had done by quoting and sourcing the Michno article but not using quotation marks, with the only difference being that Custerwest's source is under copyright, but HanzoHattori's source is not.

As the article stands right now, however, HanzoHattori's source was removed, due apparently to sloppy editing during the edit war. I'm not sure that would have happened had quotation marks been used. Anyway, discovery of this led to a too-long & very frustrating discussion with HanzoHattori that he somehow turned over to questions about Serb nationalism; meanwhile, I did a lot of research about Wikipedia polices on plagiarism, which I discovered are very scattershot, unclear, & inconsistent. I started a policy discussion at Talk:Manual of Style, which was demoralizing to me because I discovered there to be a high tolerance for what I consider plagiarism on Wikipedia. Obviously I have strong opinions about it -- I work in an academic environment, where plagiarism is absolutely forbidden, regardless of whether the source is copyrighted, public domain, or whatever. But Wikipedia is not an academic environment, & there appears to be no consensus at the moment for a policy such as the one I suggested. So, I've given up on it.

In any case, strong opinions or not, I had no business taking my frustration about this issue out on you, & I hope you'll accept my apology. --Yksin 17:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely accepted, partly because I really didn't take it as snapping, just as a mis-understanding. Anyway, I would have thought that, since you work in an academic environment, you would have known that the real combatants at Washita were exiled Serb nationalists.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[smacking self on forehead]. Of course! Geez, how in heck did I miss that? ;) --Yksin 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stefano Mencarelli

I just had the idea to check user:Stefanomencarelli's page in the Italian Wikipedia, and both his talk and user pages are full of polemics, accuses againt other editors, etc. like here. I has been banned from the Italian Wikipedia starting from May 2007 (this is why we found him here). He clearly looks like a frenzy editor who has no capability to conform to Wikipedia rules, wherever he goes and whatever he writes. We know that such people is not missing in this world. They just think the world's truth is in their hands; in a few words, it's a natural process that their Wikilife is short. --Attilios 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SR-71

Alan, Originally the article stated 12 were lost or destroyed. There have been numerous changes though. Now the artical states 13 in one section and 12 in another. There is also alot of changes with respect to lost aircraft and destroyed aircraft. Possibly 12 of them were destroyed and the 13th was lost. This should be clarified 68.244.13.195 23:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Alan, maybe it's time for another semi-protect? - BillCJ 00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marcel du Plessis

This article was wrongly deleted in my opinion from wikipedia. There was a bit of debate about it. Anyway of getting it back or will we have to start again? He has just been announced in the Namibian Rugby world cup side. Cheers Chickentacos 09:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment at RfD

Please read my comments at the 7 August 2007 RfD you commented in regarding Wp:afd. You are wrong in thinking that deleting the redirect would prevent searches for wp:afd from working, and "bad precedent" isn't the only deletion rationale there is. I would appreciate if you retracted your statement or made it clear why it is still valid in light of my comments there. In the future, please read discussions you participate in prior to commenting to prevent stating something that has been stated and refuted. BigNate37_(T) 17:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

First, may I respectfully request that you tone things down a bit. It's fine to disagree with someone, but to speak in such a rude and discourteous manner simply because you don't agree with my comments is not acceptable. As a matter of fact, I did read the discussion fully, including your comments. Maybe the problem here is that you just didn't explain yourself clearly enough. Maybe you'd like to explain in a more detailed manner to me how I got to the redirect page in the first place when I typed Wp:afd into hte search box. What would have happened if that redirect wasn't there? You have yet to explain how the project actually benefits from deleting this redirect, I've clearly explained that it would be helpful for folks like me who, accidentally or otherwise, type the search string in this way. Improve the project, don't just delete for pickiness' sake, and don't jump down another editor's throat simply because you didn't explain the technical aspects clearly enough. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that my comments were any less courteous than yours at the RfD. "Let's think about it" and "no brainer" are insulting considering the length I went to in my initial comments, implying I didn't put any effort into it. Quite the contrary, it took me quite some time and effort to formulate those comments. Regardless of that, you're right; I was quite terse. My apologies for the incorrect assumption—the points you raised were answered by my comments already, and your statement that "if we delete, we've done nothing to improve the project" seemed to have been written without regard to my previous statement that "there is harm in having Wp: redirects." I went on to explain how search results exclusively for the main namespace turn up these shortcuts and overshadow the encyclopedic results. That was why I assumed you had not read my comments end-to-end. At any rate, I thought it more appropriate at the time to reply at your talk page since restating myself would have diluted discussion at the RfD. I've given up on the notion of getting my points across at the RfD discussion, so please feel encouraged to remove my comments from your talk page should you find them unwelcome. BigNate37_(T) 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.118.153.134

ALan, User talk:24.118.153.134 has been removing data from the F-22, F-117, and other pages over the past month that I've been watching him, and has lots of warning on his page to that effect going back a few months. Can you look at this, and see if something can be done? Thanks. - BillCJ 01:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone has blocked him for a week. - BillCJ 07:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

(Barnstar moved to user page) Yksin, many thanks! It was a pleasure working with editors who were truly dedicated to making this a better place. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BWSSB

I would nominate any article that doesn't assert it's notability. This one is barely a stub. Don't make nationalistic comments. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. 24.6.65.83 04:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making nationalistic comments. I'm stating that the nom is nationalistic...you're treating a government agency from India differently than you would one from the U.S.; additionally, the article did assert notability. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"let's not be americentric here" is a nationalistic comment, one that presumes a bias on my part. Once again you fail to assume good faith - the nomination had absolutely nothing to do with where the agency is located. 24.6.65.83 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

When the article clearly states that it is one of the premier government agencies in one of India's largest cities, that's an assertion of notability. I assume good faith unless bad faith is clearly demonstrated. Please read WP:CSD...articles that assert notability, as this one did, are not elibible for CSD. As I stated in my deletion summary, I highly doubt you'd be nom-ing the article if the initials were LADWP instead of BWSSB. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If the BWSSB article looked anything like LADWP it wouldn't be an issue; the notability would be obvious. But obviously nothing is going to alter the mistaken impression you have of me. Makes me wonder why you're so quick to judge and so reluctant to accept any other possibility. 24.6.65.83 05:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, stub status (meaning shortness) is not a reason to delete and article. In fact, stubs are encouraged. Better a stub on a notable subject that others can build upon than nothing. For CSD to apply, notability has to be asserted in the article (even if it's not backed up by refs). The article in question clearly asserted notability: a premier gov't agency, one of the largest cities in one of the largest countries, and it's been around for well over 40 years. All that was contained in the stub, so clearly it is notable. What I wanted you to see is that we need to have a broadly balanced view of content: you need to recognize what the article is claiming, that it is reasonable for it to be claiming that. It should be obvious that such an agnecy in India is going to be just as notable as its equivalent agency in the U.S., even if the article isn't as long. It is an unfortunate bias around here that many editors see what's around them, and think that's notable, but don't stop to consider that an equivalent subject in a country on the other side of the globe is just as notable. My comment wasn't at all nationalistic, but rather trying to get you to think internationalistic. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I missed the word "premier" in my reading of the article; I tend to give such words, without something to back them up, scant attention in any case. I also don't consider length of existence to be notable - lots of businesses have far longer histories. I make no assumptions that similar entities are of similar notability. I've worked on lots of articles to which I have no personal knowledge and am physically far removed, all with the goal of improving Wikipedia.

Basically it was the assumption of a bias on my part that I objected to. If you had simply declined the DB without the accusation of americentric bias, I would have accepted that; I've made similar mistakes about assertions of notability before and will undoubtedly do so again. Your assumption of bad faith was very offensive and I hope you'll reconsider before doing so again. As an admin, I would hope you know better. 24.6.65.83 20:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If I offended you, I'm sorry. What I don't understand is why you insist on a negative approach to articles like this...tagging with CSD, then tagging with neutrality (how is the article not neutral? You didn't explain on the talk page like you're supposed to), then tagging with a sources tag. Why not approach it from a positive angle? You could have looked up sources and helped build the article, rather than tear it down. I'm currently doing just that, and have found plenty of sources, including reliable 3rd party sources that discuss the major water supply problems in Bangalore, and what BWSSB is doing to meet the needs. I'm currently adding this information to the article. It would have taken you just as much time to do something positive for this article as it took you to add the tags and all the discussion here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I could do that, yes, and I have with other articles, but quite simply I can't take that approach for every article I run across. I'm already bogged down in researching several others that I really don't care about. Most of the time I try to make some small improvement and move on. (I added the NPOV tag because of the word "premier" with no sources to back it up; it appears to be fluff.) Sometimes I'll try to track down the author of the article and ask them for sources; other times a more knowledgeable or involved editor will follow and correct the deficiencies (as you are). If nobody does, sometimes I'll return and work on it. Regardless, I am under no obligation to try to expand articles that I don't take an interest in. As the wizard Shazam once said, "That way lies madness." 24.6.65.83 20:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Your cultural bias is showing again...premier may sound like a fluff word to some, but in many places of the world where the Queen's english is spoken, it's merely a synonym for primary. I fully understand time limitations...you have no idea what that's like until you take on the admin role in addition to editing...but if you don't have time to deal with a stub, simply leave it for someone else, don't just try to get it deleted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Premier: Foremost, very first or very highest in quality or degree.[1] No matter how you parse it, there was nothing in the article to support such a claim, not even mention of others that could be considered "secondary." 24.6.65.83 21:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's a synonym for prime in a governmental sense, ie, "the position of the cabinet minister who is in charge of government affairs," (see [2]) and thus by default in British countries, the gov't agencies themselves. It is a dangerous thing to rely on a limited dictionary for a world language. Such dictionaries don't include regional (if you can consider the former British Empire "regional") and cultural variations of usage. Again, there's more to the wide world than your world. Open up and be willing to see that just maybe there's another explanation for things, and just because to you it's a fluff word, doesn't mean that it is so for someone else half a globe away. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KidGameRatings article deletion

I noticed you deleted my article KidGameRatings. I'm a complete newbie to Wikipedia contributing. I would appreciate it if you could give me more details about why the page was deleted. Conflict of interest (it was about my website)? Notability? Something else?

What would it have taken to make this an appropriate article for Wikipedia? I didn't see any obvious different between my article and the article for a similar website Boardgamegeek except that my article was shorter.

Thank you for your time. I'm just trying to learn how things work here on Wikipedia. I love this site, for all the great reference info that is here. (Please forgive too me if posting here is the wrong way to do things - it seemed like where I needed to post.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapax legomenon (talk • contribs)

Thanks for writing...the article had two main faults. First, it was about a website that did not appear to meet our notability guideline for websites. Secondly, it was written in terms that appeared to promote the website, rather than to be an unbiased, outside factual overview. When I looked at the talk page and saw that you had written it about your own product, it became clear as to why this was. As you can understand from the size of Wikipedia, we are flooded daily with people who try to use the encyclopedia to promote their businesses, products and services. This is one reason we have our conflict of interest guidelines. If your website is truely notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, then there's bound to be someone who's not involved who'd be willing to write about it. Hope this makes things clearer. Oh, and when you write on talk pages, please sign your messages with four tildas (~~~~). Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion John Daly's Murder Rock Golf and Country Club

It has been explained to you several times that the text reads like advertising, and so it's been deleted again, and protected this time. Please take a step back and learn about Wikipedia before proceeding. First and foremost, not all golf courses and clubs are notable, as we define notability. Second, you should read through the [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style, and pay attention to images. You might consider reading through other golf course articles (for examples, see Category:Golf clubs and courses in California. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry I was mad. It is just frustrating. I dont understand how it could be any different. If the course was made up, then yes, it would not be notable. But it is a new course, they spend 6 million dollars on it. I dont know how having an article about that is any different than having an article about a new football stadium or something like that.{{}} Oh, and how was my article any different than this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_Beach_Golf_Links

An easy question to answer...I gave you a link to our notability guideline above. If you look, Pebble Beech has had external major media coverage. As far as I can see, yours has not. There are thousands upon thousands of golf courses in the U.S. alone...what makes a course notable is when there is something significant about it - or a significant tournament is played on it - which garners major media coverage. Notability isn't conveyed by a course's mere existence. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you. I guess I'll wait 20 years from now to post it. haha

Look, don't let this discoursge you. If you really are into golf course management, you surely have access to reliable trade publications, and I'm sure the encyclopedia could benefit from your expertise and the information you have access to. There's probably plenty of course articles that need to be expanded and have reliable sources added as citations...the project does need you, it's just important to learn the ropes, just like it's important for players to know course ettiquite. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: DYK question

While I know that javascript based tools that calculate the displayed size of an article exist, when I use a copy-and-paste of the displayed text into a text editor on my computer needing to find an exact text size. In general it is not necessary to do this very often. The text of an article meeting the DYK size guidelines will generally fill a full screen on a moderately sized display without needing to use templates, images, or other space filling methods. --Allen3 ^talk 10:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move at Kyiv

Hello,

I am currently in a discussion on the Kyiv/Kiev naming page about moving the page to Kyiv, but although there is some opposition, the only argument now against moving it is that there was a poll about a move, and there was no consensus.

However, the poll which I had requested was closed in less that 15 hours, and no reason was given for that closure. Please don’t misunderstand me – I do not mean to insult anybody, nor do I take this as a slight or personal offence in any way, because I understand how much work it takes to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. Administrators have many things to do, so they cannot spend hours discussing one poll.

What is disconcerting, however, is that I was also told by an editor who disagrees with me: “You can try starting a new poll but it sure would be closed even sooner than the last one.”

I would really appreciate any suggestions you may have.

I have searched through the Wikipedia guidelines, but I haven’t found any information about poll guidelines. I want to open another poll/request to move. I would love to hear your opinion in this poll.

I do have a request, however. Please let this poll run for five days. There are many people who are very busy in the “real world” who would like to contribute. This is a question of a new nation’s capital city of a relatively new independent state, and it is important to very many people. The discussion on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming is roughly 50 thousand words long.

My personal arguments for the move are summarized in point 24, the topic at hand, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming#The_Topic_at_Hand, however, as I mentioned, there are very many people who have contributed to this discussion.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

Horlo 03:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(Thanks for looking out, Bill...actually, it sorta was vandalism...Horlo spammed a gazillion admin pages with this message, and Anetode was just trying to clean up the mess...but that's ok, though...I replied on Horlo's and will copy the message here; to make the message make sense, the first sentence is referring to Anetode's message for Horlo to stop the spamming....)

As one of the people you spammed, I echo the above sentiment. But I will also address your question: If I were to participate, I would voice a strong oppose. The Ukraine article is not Ukrayina, Germany is not Deutschland. This is the English Wikipedia, and our guidelines clearly state that the common English usage is the preferred title. You have not shown that your version is the preferred English version. I live in the U.S., but as a hobby I've read much about Soviet history, and I have a nice sized library of books on the subject...all in English, most published in the U.S. (though some are from the U.K.). All have it spelled "Kiev". You'd have to provide some pretty compelling evidence that your version is the more common version here. Ultimately, why is it so important to you to change it? Do you realize how much combined editors' time has been wasted on this when there's so many articles that genuinely need improving?AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, Alan. YOu might want to remind the guy who revomed it what edit summaries are for :) I noticed this page Kiev awhile back, and find it odd that so many people oppose the move. India has a major city change its spelling, or even whole name, every couple of years, and the pages are moved the next day! Calcutta is at Kolkata, and Bombay is at Mumbai, and the former names are much more well know than the new names. And there are more. I guess it's just another sign of how far consensus messes up WIkipedia as much as it helps. - BillCJ 04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that, brother! Especially the India thing. By a very wierd set of coincidences, starting with me saving a valid article from CSD, I've ended up spending some time yesterday and today editing it (BWSSB), and I'm amazed at how many different spellings for place names there are. Makes things very confusing. All I can say is that if I had seen a proposal about the name changes for the articles you mentioned above, I would have opposed on the same grounds. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I do find it odd that the move discussion was closed after not even a full day. DOn't we usually let those go on at least a week? As far as name changes, most people nowadays try to respect other nations wishes in names, especially if their in India. I guess 1 billion people in a former British colony matter a lot more than 50 million people in a former Soviet republic! At least they appear to have more clout. - BillCJ 04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but keep in mind that former British colony is part of the English-speaking world, so they have a legit argument for "common" english version. And yes, straw polls usually run for longer, but that taken with all the other discussion, to me, shows a foregone conclusion. Just my .02, though. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heritage Home Magazine

Hey,

I made an article for Heritage Home Magazine a ways back and it was deleted as "blatant advertising for a company... ." While it was generated by me, its editor, it wasn't advertising — it was descriptive and I tried to keep any 'sells' out of it. The fact that I made it doesn't automatically make it spam — I'm a journalist and I consider myself honest.

I don't see how my page was much different from this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Journalism_Review — except for the lack of a few tags.

I'd like to request it be put back up and have the phrases you found objectionable removed. It was written in good faith.

Heritagehome 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Washita River

HanzoHattori has resumed his massive changes to the article; [3]. Dreadstar † 08:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried discussing it with him on his talk page, but to no avail. I'm not going to engage him in an edit war, although I did revert a couple of his edits..which he immediately reverted back without even bothering to discuss on the talk page, so he has once again shown he engages in such activity. He needs to be banned from editing the article. How does the 'community consensus' on banning users from editing articles work: Decision to ban #1 and right below it: Community ban ? Dreadstar † 09:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, he got busy. Besides not discussing on the talk page before making changes, his also edits show another typical characteristic: he hardly ever used edit summaries to explain his edits, & when he makes a whole bunch of edits all at one time, as here, its hard for anyone to know what his intent is. Pretty much as on The Holocaust, which is still under full protection because of his edit warring & his refusal to commit to refraining from edit warring if the article becomes unprotected. Two days ago I wrote an "Inside view" on his user conduct RfC about the problems on The Holocaust, as well as further comments on the talk page of that RfC, & I think he might have decided to reescalate after that.

The irony is that some of his edits would probably be just fine by other editors, if he just used the talk page & edit summaries, instead of just pushing right in there. I agree that it might be necessary to resort to a single-article ban for him on Battle of Washita River (& probably The Holocaust too), but I don't know the process either. --Yksin 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw my comments on his talk page, but I've had it with his disruptive edits. I'll be fairly busy today, but will be able to check in here occasionally. If he continues, I'm ready to take further action. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm prob. going to weigh in on the talk page & go over his edits there. --Yksin 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not responded to a couple of new polls or anything else at Talk:Battle of Washita River yet, but there's some stuff going on between him & Dreadstar at User talk:HanzoHattori#Wikistalking, Samashki massacre & Talk:Samashki massacre of concern... incivility (as usual), removing POV tags, accusations of wikistalking. --Yksin 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know...

On 15 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, 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 12:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Custerwest

I see you've already discovered the return of Custerwest with his addition of several linkspam links from his blogsite to Battle of the Little Bighorn. He's using his blogsite as a reference again too, which is absolutely illegitimate because his blogsite makes wide use of copyrighted texts for which he has no license. I.e., his additions violate WP:LINKS#Restrictions on linking. I removed them all before, & will remove the rest of them now. --Yksin 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I spoke too soon: he had temporarily added his blog as a ref, then changed it to a different (non-COI) ref himself already. So, everything's okay now. --Yksin 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Levin

Alan, we've got some IPs continually adding unsourced info on a dispute between Mark Levin and Ron Paul supporters to the Mark Levin page, as here. Can you semi-protect the page while we try to get these people to talk? I'm being accused of "censorship", but they won't even address the legitimate problems with the material. One of the IPs even claims it from "multiple sources", but of course none are cited. I'm borderline 3RR here, if not over the 24 hour limit, but as this is a BLP, I think the reversions are definitely warranted. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BillCJ 19:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done...one week of semi protection. Hope things can be worked out. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adopt me PLEASE

---

mgeheren

can you aopt me

??????
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgeheren (talk • contribs) 17:24, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Looks like User:Arknascar44 has already offered adoption, so I'll defer to him, but I'm always available to answer questions. Feel free to write any time. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ARRGGGHHH!!!

When did the nuts take over, ALan? Boy what a day! I can't seem to do anything right! Idecide to take a wiki-break, and one of the people causing trouble decides my wiki-break notice contains a "persoanl attack" against anotehr user I'm having trouble with! SHeesh. Oh, btw, there's an IP here that seems awfully familar. WOuld you be able to protect my user and talk page for the time being? It's OK if the answer is No. THanks for whatever you can do, even if it means editing my WIki-break banner to remove personal attacks! (If you think that's what they are.) - BillCJ 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A self-requested block might be a good idea too, to enforce my Wiki-break! But would I still be able to work on my sandboxes? - BillCJ 01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SS Suevic

Hey there. I just had the pleasure of reviewing this article for GA - it's close and I've left some pointers on the talkpage. Let me know when you're done. Great work. The Rambling Man 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll start in on it this evening or tomorrow. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Couple of final tweaks and I've now passed it to GA. Good work! The Rambling Man 07:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment

FYI, I consider ANY unwanted changes to the userspace with my name (since I can't say "my userspace") to be vandalism. Vandlism is against WIkipedia POLICY - it's not a guideline, so how did I bereka my own rules?? Idiot. I know we didn't start off on the right foot today, but I did aplogize for it. Yet you insisted on redacting my userspace, like I was a common vandal, wtihout even the courtesy to appraoch me first liek a real adult would. If the wiki-break notice is a personal attack on my paer, then I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I've had it today with people protecting the real vandals and abusers, then going after me like I'm worse than the vandals. Well, I've had it with idoits like you. And you really are stupid for nominating the largest airlines list. THere, now THAT was a REAL personal attack. GO get me blocked if you wish, but I'm gone from WIkipedia anyway. THought I may come back as an IP, since they get more respect than regular users from the likes of morons like you! - BillCJ 03:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

COpied by my shadow, who will now have to harass someone else, since I'm leaving here. Enjoy your victory for now, Mr. "lost due to navigational error"! LOLOLOLOL! Talk about a MORON! - BillCJ 04:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 15K

Alan, congrats on the 15K edits. I just passed you a few weeks ago, but looks like you'll get to pass me for good now. I'll e-mail you with more abaout what I'm going to do from here on as far as editing goes. Thanks agian for your friendship, mentoring, and guidance. - BillCJ 04:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that you'll be sorely missed! AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHI

Good day, I remember a little while back you where contemplating starting an article on Columbia Helicopters. I have started and article and will be adding as I can. I haven't had as much time as I like on this so feel free to pitch in as much as you like. Enjoy --Trashbag 22:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, most excellent! I got sidetracked with admin stuff and the fact that my wife, in housecleaning, managed to misplace both my magazine sources...will go looking again! AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amelia vandal back again

Not only has our Amelia Earhart conspiracy theorist come back, he has again reverted every change made by Gwen Gale who has been a major contributor to the article for over a year. She did a very careful analysis of the recent edits and rewrote the article, establishing a referenced and supported section on disappearance theories related to Amelia Earhart. I do not want to get into a revert war but our "Saipan theory is best" editor has been cautioned on both the article discussion page and his own talk page, that his assertions are untenable and do not have consensus support. He will not listen to me and only an admin can return the article to its original state or to the version that Gwen Gale proposed. Help... Bzuk 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Alan, I didn't know how to proceed with a review of the Earhart "flap" and I really didn't want to "bug" you any further, so I made a blanket appeal to a number of admins hoping that at least one would look at the issue. I think you and ck lostsword have come to a very suitable solution and I thank you again. Bzuk 11:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

NP! But, you still need to make your views known in the straw poll! AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin XB-51

Alan, thanks for the heads-up on the OV-10. I'm sure that guy Bill you metioned would be glad to know you're watching out for his concerns. Also, could you take a look at my explanation at Talk:Martin XB-51 for a text dump revert on the article? The source cited has no sources itself, and the connection between the 2 aircraft is dubious at best. If we can find some good sources, tho, an arctile on the Messerschmitt Me P.1102/5 seems like a good idea. Thnaks. - TomKat222 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orient Thai Airlines

Under what circumstances can be stated as a incidents or accidents? I apologise that is an incident, sorry. (Addaick 13:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

Replied on your talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Custerwest's links

Re: your edit of the RfC -- he also did it at George Armstrong Custer here, & I deleted it here. To me the problem is not just the COI link, but also that linking to his blog by anyone would be a violation of WP:LINKS#Restrictions on linking because his blog site contains unlicensed copyrighted materials. An email correspondent told me that he had to work pretty darn hard to force Custerwest to remove my correspondent's copyrighted materials from his blog site.

Thanks for staying on top of this. --Yksin 00:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Much thanks for your advise! (Addaick 11:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] More thanks

It's cool when someone understands :) Cheers. Gwen Gale 20:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effectiveness

You will improve the effectiveness of your warnings if you list them on a user's talk page. As it turned out, I was not viewing the page history for Amelia Earhart because that's where Bzuk was slandering me and issuing insults. So I didn't see your warning to me. So instead of warning Bzuk about his inappropriate behavior to others, you blocked me for 48 hours instead. We can't create an appropriate Wikipedia community if those who slander and insult others are rewarded and condoned.

Also, when you blocked me and then put up a straw poll where I could not voice my side early on in the process, it sort of looked like you were trying to amass a posse against my improvements to the article. It's tough to debate when you can't even post to even a talk page.Matt605 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess this just further illustrates the problem here: you simply edit without discussing, and deliberately avoid the discussion area. First, Bzuk was not slandering you. He actually was relatively civil given the disruptiveness of your edits, and didn't deserve any warnings at all...in fact, given the persistence of your edits and your refusal to engage in meaningful discussion regarding how your edits failed to meet our standards, but Bzuk's and Gwen's patience actually deserves commendation. You were out of line with your edits, and you clearly chose to avoid engaging in the discussion about them. Our consensus policy specifically tells you that if your edits are reverted, you need to go discuss it further on the talk page, and since you admit that you were avoiding the talk page, you hardly have a leg to stand on.

As for the straw poll, the admin who protected the page was going to do it for a day and then rule on the consensus. If you read my proposal, it was to keep the poll open for four days, a period that was specifically intended to allow you time after your block to participate in the discussion. Your block was for only 48 hours, so that gave you 2 days to join in the discussion. How is it tough to debate when you are given sufficient time to do so? No one is amassing a "posse" against your "improvements". What we have is a group of very experienced editors trying to tell you that your "improvements" aren't that at all, and are in fact contrary to our policies and guidelines.

The results of the poll are clear, and you need to respect the consensus even though you disagree with its outcome. You need to also heed the warning of ck lostword: if you choose to deliberately ignore the consensus and push your POV, you will be blocked indefinitely. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The word count on my discussions with Bzuk exceeded 5,000 before he asked, "let's see what you've got." I was very active on the Earhart talk page. I didn't see your warnings anywhere on MY talk page.

I will continue to follow the rules and discuss changes before making them, adding verifiable information, and deleting unverifiable information. I will ignore users who slander and insult me and other members of the Wikipedia community.

There is no consensus on the article. The straw poll didn't result in consenus, and your comment on my statements in the straw poll shows you to be not just wrong, but forwarding your own agenda. I hope you're not misusing the administrative powers you've been entrusted with.

If you had not blocked me, then I might not be by myself at the end of a list of people voting the other way before reading my input, and some others might have felt it was okay to side with me. But they have cast their votes already. Matt605 21:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about siding with people, and it isn't about agendas, at least on my end. It's clearly about that on your end. The fact that you say there's no consensus when the straw poll clearly shows tha there is, tells me you don't really care what anyone else says. I may be wrong, but the core issue here, as I perceive it, is that you think Wikipedia is a place to advance your personal favorite theories. If this is so, then I'm afraid that you're wrong. The best articles, and the best edits, are those that are done from pure research using secondary, third-party sources, researches that don't reflect your own personal views. In the case of this article, however, it seems clear from reading your own words that you have become convinced that the Saipan theory is the only valid one, and you insist on not just championing that theory in its own section, but on changing the entire article to reflect that theory as the primary one. In other words, you're advocating for it. That's POV.

The lack of respect that you showed to the other editors here by your drastic reversions to your own view of things, and your refusal to discuss it, after being warned in that discussion that such behaviour would be viewed as disruptive editing is what got you blocked. And, if I read your comments above, you seem to be saying that you intend to continue in this manner, ignoring the other editors who are involved here, ignoring the fact that there's stong consensus against your views. Once again, I will warn you again, as ck lockword has done as well, that if you persist in advocating in this article without first proposing your changes - especially potentially controversial ones - and seeking consensus from the other editors, your edits will be considered distruptive, and you will be blocked indefinitely.

As to my comments to your input on the straw poll, maybe in a way it does show my agenda: my agenda it to do the most in my power to see that this encyclopedia is based on verifiable references and that edits are done in accordance with our policies and guidelines, regardless of whether I personally agree with them or not. Your argument was just that, and argument from your own logic, and the point of my comment was to point out that your theory isn't backed up with sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS. YouTube videos don't cut it. Your arguments and logical conclusions are little more than OR. So, yes, if !voting against edits and content that don't meet our criteria, then I'm pushing my agenda. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You mischaracterize me and my actions. However, the effect of blocking me while conducting a straw poll assured that there was no chance for me to present my side while people made up their minds. The many comments following their votes show that they have diverse reasons for voting the way they did, so the consensus you sought to acheive was not attainable even in my absence.

Of course, I can't blame anyone for not wanting to join in a 8 on 1 fight, especially when it's on the side of the 1! Matt605 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

C'mon...at least have a bit of honesty...your views were well represented in the lengthy discussions talk page, and the majority of those participated were quite familiar with them. For you to characterize this as a "fight" is really disappointing. This is an academic discussion, nothing more, nothing less. And don't blame me for your block...you brought that on yourself. Consensus not attained? We don't need a consensus of their reasons, we need a consensus on their final views, and the consensus is clear, 8 to 1 as you pointed out. Now, please, put this behind you and move on, and don't follow up on your threat to continue to ignore other users and continue to edit in your previous manner. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Wondering...

Why did you delete the Andre Nickatina article? I think I missed the reasoning somewhere... Thanks. - Bagel7^T's 06:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because all it was was a 2 sentence statment that he was a rapper from the bay area. No assertion of notability, no demonstration that he met the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Just one of indistinguishable scores of non-notable Bay Area rappers. On top of that, it was a recreation of material deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Nickatina. Hope that helps. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tvtrip

Hi,

What was the reason of speedy deletion of Tvtrip page please.

François

It failed to meet the notability standards of WP:WEB, it was self-written conflict of interest spam, and recreation of previously deleted material. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)