User talk:JJLatWiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adding comments
Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Thanks in advance.


How I reply
If you start a new subject on my talk page, I will reply only on my talk page. I assume that if you're interested enough to start a subject, you're interested enough to check back and see if I replied. I won't copy the discussion or replies to your talk page. I do this to help maintain a full discussion flow that other readers can follow. If I start a new subject on your talk page, I will watch your page for changes.


Adding comments
Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~.


Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, JJLatWiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 22:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] PRT picture

Hi,

Welcome to wikipedia. The picture on the PRT page was a good idea. I was wondering if you could "upload new pictures" - overwriting the current one, if you are updating a picture. Pictures have history in the same way articles do, and its much easier to keep track of one page with one history, rather than 2, 3, or more pages. I'll tell this to skybum too. Happy editing. Fresheneesz 05:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red name

If you write something in your user page, your name link will turn blue, and everyone will know you are a serious Wikipedian. Stephen B Streater 22:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. One day, maybe I'll follow it. At the moment, I don't consider myself a "serious Wikipedian" and I don't respect someone's entries more based on the content of their user page, or lack thereof. If someone doubts the veracity of my contribution because my user page is blank, maybe they'll do more research to confirm it themselves. It would be much worse if someone accepts information as more credible because the contributor's user page is well appointed.--JJLatWiki 02:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UniModal

Hi, you probably have no idea that UniModal was a controversial page, and was deleted (I think unfairly) a while back. It now is its own real page, and I would greatly appreciate your help with it. An administrator with an adgenda JzG is trying to delete much of the pages verified content, without discussion. I would be very thankful if you could help make this into a civil discussion rather than a battle. Thanks! Fresheneesz 23:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Noticeboard incident

JzG has posted a note about my recent personal attack (as he calls it). You have been recently involved in the debate so I thought I'd let you know in case you wish to respond. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VMFA-314

Just wanted to say welcome and good job on your additions to the VMFA-314 page. It is really shaping up. Not sure if your interests lie just with this unit or with the USMC in general but we are always looking for editors to help us out over at the USMC Portal. I am sure that you have seen it by this point but if able we ask you to help out where you can. Again, welcome, and if you ever need anything just drop me a line.--Looper5920 21:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Looper5920. I do have a particular interest in 314. I also have a particular interest in F-18's and broader interests in the USMC and aviation technology. I've looked at the amazing USMC Portal and will try make a point of contributing there. Thanks again for the hospitality. --JJLatWiki 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen B Streater

FYI: Stephen has just been nominated for adminship, should you wish to register your vote. Actually, it might even be too early to vote (he hasn't even accepted nomination yet) but if you're interested, keep an eye on it for the next few days.A Transportation Enthusiast 18:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mock Attack and Saegheh Missile

User JJLatWiki, I expect an explantion about the reverts of modifications I have made to the article on the Saegheh (warplane). I removed the term "Mock", for the simple reason that this aircraft actually fired ordnance in a training excerise(unguided rockets), and can clearly be seen in the article's video. It is better described as a "practice exercise", than a "mock" one. I also require a source that shows the existance of a "surface to surface" missile known as the Saegheh missile/rocket. I am also becoming concerned about what appears to be a form of online harassment, on your part. This will not be tolerated. I have tried to be civil with you, but you must either respond likewise, or else I will assume you have an agenda that relates to reveting any and all articles I either create or modify, simply on principle. That is not exceptable. Technajunky 21:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User Technajunky, I have no such agenda. First, from your first change of the term, "mock", it seemed like you took personal offense to that particular term. You first changed it without citation [1], even though the citation I provided specifically uses the term, "mock". Then, three days later you found a respected source for an alternative to "mock" and so changed the term and included the citation[2]. It seems entirely possible that your citation and my citation are refering to separate events, one that used live ordnance in a practice bombing and one that used none or practice ordnance for a press demonstration. I don't know the chronology, so since the sources reported "bombing virtual targets" and "mock bombing", it seems appropriate to include both phrases and citations.
We already have been through this. Go read the article's dicussion. Technajunky 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Second, as far as the surface-to-surface Saegheh missile... as I noted in the log where I removed the [citation needed] tag, I have added numerous citations describing a surface-to-surface missile named Saegheh. I have found that there are now a multitude of weapon systems that are being disputed online that may use "Saegheh" in their name: a surface-to-surface missile, air defense missile, UAV guided bomb, at least one, but maybe more, warplane, and maybe even a sub-to-surface missile. I only insert systems into the actual article that I had the most confidence that I was correctly interpretting the source.
Yes, the sources you added AFTER I brought the issue up. Thats pretty fresh. Technajunky 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Since I see that you have reverted my last changes, I assume that you did not read my note in the change log where I removed the missile system [citation needed] tag and you have not followed the wiki link to the missile system to read the numerous citations there.
Furthermore, if I have an "agenda" in this article, it is to prevent WP from being another source of Iran's disinformation on these planes. If it appears that I am harrassing you, it is coincidental, unintended, and misperception on your part.
At no point have I spread disinformation about this aircraft, or promoted any Iranian claims about their various weapons systems, real or imagined. On the contrary, I seek the truth in the matter, and CONSTANTLY must run up against Iranians who think that Iran is building F-22 clones, and Americans, who believe that Iran has yet to discover the secret of fire. Technajunky 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You're taking everything personally. I did not imply, nor did I in any way mean you were the source of the disinformation. The only reason I got involved with the Saeqeh is that someone added a link to the F/A-18 article under "Comparable Aircraft", and I just happened to follow the link. The Saeqeh article said the plane was entirely Iran-developed, which came as a surprise knowing what I know of Iran. So, after some research, I found pictures and more information. That information sounded typical of Iran's (and all other tyrannical governments) disinformation. Some sources said the Saeqeh was better than the F/A-18, an improved version of the YF-17, and many other descriptions usually making it superior to everything else and mentioning "Iranian experts". Typical disinformation. None of your edits that I've seen are what I would call "disinformation". --JJLatWiki 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Finally, because I perceived a bias in your edits, I examined other contributions to other articles and observed what seems like bias and changes based on personal offense.
More likely than not, you are simply offended by the fact that I initially created conflict with you over terminology on the discussion forum on the Saeqeh article. For that, I apologize, and I was out of line.
Now, I suggest you LIST these percieved examples of BIAS in my article corrections and modifications. In the case of of Sarah Shahi, I actually reinforced one of your changes with categorical links(This information is rather "new"). I believe in a fair approach, as well as the ultimate goal of seeking the truth.
1. Several times you removed the Spanish heritage from Sarah Shahi citing "unsubstantiated information" but you left the Iranian heritage. When you doubted the existance of a Saeqeh short-range, surface-to-surface missile system, you inserted the [citation needed] indicating your doubt. For Sarah Shahi, you immediately deleted the Spanish heritage even though the IMDB bio verifies the information. I reached a conclusion about your bias by that action. I concluded that you will allow any unsubstantiated data that reflects positively on Iran and perhaps its culture, but you will not allow any unsubstantiated negative data. I concluded that you are offended that a woman whose father is Iranian would be called anything other than Iranian. From your other deletion on Sarah Shahi, even those substantiated by external sources, I conclude that you are offended that an Iranian woman would defy her father's rule to not learn the spanish language and that she would attend a Christian church. There is no indication that the bio at Sarah-Shahi.net is inaccurate, yet you dismiss it and deny any attempt to use it as an external source. --JJLatWiki 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Your insistance that Timur be called a "Turkic conqueror" and not a "Mongol warlord". You deleted the offensive term that was presented with authoritative references. It seems like none of your changes to Timur included citations and you offered no justification. --JJLatWiki 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Combat history of the F-14 that involve Iran's use of the plane is subject immediate deletion without first asking for references or offering contradictory references. --JJLatWiki 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe that you are seeking the truth. Deleting "Spanish descent", especially while leaving "Iranian descent", from Sarah Shahi was not "truthful" or seeking the truth. Seeking the truth requires asking for information, either by placing the [citation needed] tag when you doubt the information or actually going online and finding the data that supports or defies the claim. By deleting "Spanish" from Sarah Shahi, especially when the IMDB bio pre-existed as an external link and it supported the claim of her Spanish heritage, you actually harmed Wikipedia as a source of information and dishonored "truth". --JJLatWiki 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What you are doing seems amounts to cyber-stralking of some sort, and not a very healthy thing to do. If need be, I will seek the aid of mediation in this matter. The real question is, what is your bias? I think we already no the answer to that one... Technajunky 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have my biases, like all humans, but I try to avoid letting that affect the contributions I make to WP. I would not and have not engaged in cyber-stalking or online harrassment. I have neither the time or the energy to engage in such activity. I have no interest in you or your politics or your biases. If my edits contradict yours or your personal opinion, believe me when I say that it is entirely unintended and circumstantial. If your edit says, "the moon is made of cheese" and I change it and include supporting references, it's not because YOU made the edit, but rather because I felt the edit was wrong or could be made better. For example, you recently removed "bombed virtual enemy targets" and left "mock". I think it is appropriate to use both descriptions based on the sources we have both cited, so I plan to restore the quote from your source. I think the change makes the article better, not because I have any interest in arbitrarily changing every edit YOU make. --JJLatWiki 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I now ask that you carefully read the sources I cited in the Saegheh article that describe a surface-to-surface missile system so named, and invite you back here to debate whether or not I am justified to make such a claim. --JJLatWiki 22:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Those links you RECENTLY added simply describe what is known as an ATGM(Anti-Tank Guided Missile). Technajunky 00:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The China View reference and the United Jeruselum reference both refer to the system as a "surface-to-surface" missile. --JJLatWiki 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arbitration?

I am considering going to dispute resolution or arbitration against JzG, for his activities on the PRT pages. I wanted to do it back in April, but I took the high road then due to JzG's personal issues; but now it's coming back to haunt me that I didn't do it then. It may be too late now. What's your opinion? ATren 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

While I would describe most of JzG's edits as having a bias, I think lately they have been, for the most part, innocuous. I think he has a bias that manifests as mild protectionism of PRT against any change that implies PRT could work as anything more than a parking lot circulator system. However, his actions, at least of late, are only borderline in their demand for, especially, arbitration. I agree that he is often stubborn and less critical of negative edits than non-negative edits, but I think that as an admin, his fellow admins will rally and err on the side of their fellow admin. So I think arbitration would not give you favorable results. That said, I think a WP:RFC specifically for statements he insists be part of the article, or insists be removed could be useful. That way we could debate the edits without the appearance of an edit war. Any action specific against JzG will go nowhere, IMO. --JJLatWiki 19:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I was actually referring to JzG's early actions, back in the spring, in which JzG twice threatened to lock the page in response to an innocuous Skybum edit. Locking a page during a content dispute is a no-no, but threatening to lock it is a little more fuzzy. His actions during and after that time were also highly suspect, including repeated reverts of good edits, WP:OWN issues, assuming bad faith on our part, rejecting our edits based solely on his presumption that we were biased, and POV pushing of Avidor's view (he tried to get Avidor's cartoon into the article, then tried to get content from Light Rail Now in - even as he was rejecting journal sources from Anderson and others).
I would let it go, but JzG is still going around calling us (mainly me, but also Fresheneesz) POV pushers and trolls. If he would let it go, I wouldn't pursue it, but he refuses to let it go, and I'm sick of following him around and defending myself. That's the only reason why I would go the arbitration route so long after the fact. I agree, his recent actions on the PRT pages are probably not actionable, but his history certainly is. Though I concede it may be to late to go to arbitration with all those old charges...
I think JzG is still bitter because I campaigned heavily against him in the arb-com elections...
If you're interested, see User:JzG/ATren for a summary of my case (JzG created that as a sort of he-said-she-said, and I put my evidence there). If JzG stops talking about me, I'll likely not proceed with arbitration, but if he continues, I'll go forward with it (what have I got to lose?). Thanks for your input. ATren 21:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that in the past, he was more biased and inclined to assume the middle ground was somewhere between Avidor's rabid anti-PRT position and the more "pie in the sky" concepts like Unimodal. The longer Avidor stays in the shadows, the more centered, and open-minded JzG becomes. I would have more strongly supported official action against JzG when he was at his worst. But as time has moved on, all our recollections have faded and the difficulty of collecting evidence to support the claims has increased substantially. Now, I haven't delved into the recent history to see what JzG has been saying about you lately, so I will make a little effort to investigate it further. I guess I've had a few recent run-ins with extremely opinionated and obstinate WP editors, and the experience has changed how willing I am to fight endlessly, especially through edits. The edit summaries quickly digress and offer onlookers little chance to inject their opinion. So now, I start a new thread in the talk page, and maybe escalate it to an WP:RfC. And I've decided that if I don't get satisfaction in an RfC, I probably won't get satisfaction by more extreme means, so I back way off.
I'll take a look at the new user JzG created, because I am interested. I think JzG has put himself on a pedestal, and uses his adminship as evidence of his superior mastery of the subject, not just enforcement of the rules, guidelines, and appropriate use of WP. --JJLatWiki 00:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Most likely, I will just drop it (unless he escalates again) but I wanted to get some other opinions. ATren 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, and long after the event, I am not bitter at all. I am perfectly sanguine about the whole thing. "Deals badly with trolls" was a perfectly valid criticism, in the context of an arena which is heavily infested with trolling, and withdrawing was the correct thing to do, and to be honest I only put myself forward because there were few candidates at the time, of whom some fell into my personal "not in a million years" basket; I ecouraged FloNight to stand and was very pleased that she was elected. The worst possible result would have been for me to be elected and then to continue dealing badly with trolls, so no, I am not in the least bitter and never was - my main problem was with Fys, anyway, not with ATren. As to my bias, I am strongly biased in favour of policy. Which means that the article on PRT needs to reflect the verifiable fact that the only systems in production are for car parks. Sure, we can document that PRT proponents dream of the skies, but only as long as we note that they have so faronly got as far as a small step-ladder. The idea that we document what has been achieved (as opposed to what promoters claim will one day be) is not, actually, a particularly controversial view. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record, Guy: we are both working toward the same thing: building a good encyclopedia, but we strongly disagree on specifics. I think, through all of this warring, we've all build a healthy respect for each other, even if we sharply disagree. In any event, I consider all of that in the past. This was an old conversation that I intentionally let drop (even though I appreciated your comments on the user page, JJLatWiki) because I want to move on and let it go. It's all documented, you said your piece, I said mine, and I intend to do my best to let it die. Should things flare up again, I think we should both (quickly) seek help from trusted third parties, like Durova or Stephen Streater, before it gets out of hand, because fighting will get us nowhere. Let's just move on. And, in the spirit of cooperation, feel free to call on me if you are dealing with a particularly difficult dispute, and I will try to lend a hand before you get to the point of losing your temper - and I promise I won't bring up old disputes. :-) ATren 15:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think we are both working for the same thing. As to whether we disagree on specifics, I would not really know - I've only encountered you on one article out of the several thousand I've edited, and you seem to have some pretty entrenched views on that subject, whereas it's of only passing interest to me. I try not to draw too many conclusions from single instances (human frailties notwithstanding) and I can get to like most people. My major problem on that article was always with Fresheneesz and I have a problem with him in several other areas, too, and so do several other people. But this is a pretty inclusive project, and very diverse people with wildly differing and often bitterly opposed views seem, somehow, to make it work most of the time. I mean, when you think about it, with - what? - one and a half million articles? Some tens of thousands of active contributors, hundreds of thousands who edit at least occasionally, and we get by with under a dozen arbitrators, rarely more than a dozen cases running at once, a few volunteer mediators, and not that many active janitors, and we still manage to get most of the whackos, advertisers and egregious pushers of tiny minority views corralled and either educated or banned. It's amazing, really. It's what I like about this project and why I am still here despite the likes of User:ParalelUni. Right now we have a problem with Cplot, which causes a bit of drama, but this will die down. There's always an undercurrent of drama, but it rarely results in much. The project is not much different now to what it was before the Great Userbox War of 2005/2006, for example, most of the people who were involved on both sides are still here and most of them have got over it. It's like nowhere else on the Net. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: "entrenched views" - no, opposition to an editor whose sole purpose is trolling and POV-pushing does not imply an "entrenched view". Otherwise, I agree with everything you said. ATren 23:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree also, but also except for describing ATren as having pretty entrenched views on the subject. I think I have a particular optimism about the technical viability of the subject, although I am particularly pessimistic about the political possibility of getting such a system built. I think ATren is optimistic about both the technical and political feasability. But I don't see him being particularly promotional or advancing a particular POV. I think it is a little unfair to call it a POV if someone happens to agree with the research that says something can work. We're not talking about the politics of getting the thing built, where POV is a driving influence. I'm reminded again of the space elevator. Compare the articles for the space elevator to PRT. The PRT article is riddled with provisos and warnings that no complete system has ever been built and there are researchers who say it can't possibly work as well as the proponents dream, if at all. But the space elevator article is almost all about the dream, and practically nothing regarding the technical and political near impossibility. I mean no one dropped in the warning that, oh by the way, as of x date, the longest carbon nanotube produced was only 5.57 centimeters long and 70 nanometers (which I completely made up, but the length of the longest nanotube is shockingly short compared to the dream). To give ATren (and my own edits) a little more latitude, the most extreme edits took place when Avidor was most active in the article, and his extremism caused a lot of waves and counter ripples. It's hard to be calm and collected when someone implies that you are an extremist because there is so much middle ground between yourself and someone the likes of Avidor.
By the way, thanks to both of you for continuing this discussion. I think we're starting to get to know each other much better as a result and will perhaps find some benefit in the future as a result. --JJLatWiki 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything you say here, except the part where I am optimistic about the political realities. I don't think I'm as pessimistic as you or Guy, but I'm certainly not optimistic. In fact, I've never raised the PRT possibility in my own city, and I probably never will, because I realize what an uphill political battle it would be.
Perhaps people mis-interpret my extreme distaste for the anti-PRT political campaign; that my objection to anti-PRT political propaganda makes me a proponent, or an optimist, or a dreamer. I think this is unfair. When I object to misleading criticism of PRT, such as that found at Light Rail Now or Avidor's blogs, this does not imply that I would object to well-founded criticism. Indeed, I was supportive of Louis Demery's regulatory concerns from the very beginning. Demery is a vocal critic of PRT, yet once I realized his research was sound and his concerns verifiable, I encouraged him to add a paragraph to the article, which he did (and it remains today).
My problem was always with the inflammatory fluff, like Light Rail Now's misleading paper, and Avidor's political blogs. These were never reliable sources - they diverted the debate away from political/technical reality, and into the realm of silly mudslinging. Instead of a real debate on the technologies, i.e. should a mid-sized city stick with the tried-but-not-always-true light rail or take a huge risk on promising-yet-unproven PRT, these opponents shift the debate to ridiculous political turf wars. Objecting to this sort of sillyness doesn't make me an optimist or a proponent. ATren 02:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Point taken and could not agree more. Countering Avidor's extremism (i.e. guided bomb delivery system for terrorists) is not the same thing as being PRT proponent. But, I have a particular distaste for "Light" Rail, and so when someone uses LRT as a counter argument to PRT my attention is instinctively drawn to it. My problem with LRT is that, for the most part, it's been proven to be an inefficient and ineffective means of urban transportation, and I, as a tax payer and property owner, pay for most of it and get the least benefit from it. I've heard stories about private commuter bus companies all over the country who once provided great service and operated at a profit without government subsidies. I see not even the most remote such possibility for Light Rail. And since PRT is the bastard child of transit politics, it will probably take private investment and a extremely high confidence in profitable operation for a PRT transit system to ever be built. The state of California will give away billions of dollars for stem cell research, but no government authority in America would think about even granting access to public land to help test an unproven transit technology. They seem to have no problems with spending billions to buy homes and businesses along a proposed LRT corridor and building a few miles of a Light Rail system that serves a laughable fraction of the commuting population. They'll even steal private property so that Disneyland can have their own exit ramp off the freeway. Sorry. Now I'm getting myself pissed and off the subject. --JJLatWiki 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for asking

Thanks for asking, by the way, I appreciate it. Shows we can look past our differences :-) Guy (Help!) 11:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I appreciate and respect your suggestions regardless of our differences elsewhere. Honest disagreements, discussions, and debates add a little something to the flavor of life. Such thing shouldn't be a universal barrier between people. --JJLatWiki 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblocked?

JzG, apparently someone was doing some bad stuff using the same web protection proxy service I use at my company. Trust me when I say that Messagelabs is a very respected company and if the IP address is an open proxy, they and I would be shocked and intensely interested to know. I have no affiliation to Messagelabs other than the fact that they are vendor of the company for whom I work. Please unblock the IP.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Block of 85.158.137.195/Pdigrl lifted by JzG. Please shout (using {{unblock-auto}} again) if this hasn't worked and we'll get right on it. Thanks.

Request handled by: 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wiki-information regarding your experiences at MCAS El Toro

Hi! I believe you stated that you served at MCAS El Toro and that you were discharged from active service in the USMC at MCAS El Toro on January 20, 1991. Can you provide any detail regarding your duties at El Toro? I hope to improve the MCAS El Toro article, and I would really appreciate your help. Thanks! JPatrickBedell 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I was at El Toro (off and on, between training and deployments) from 1985 to 1991. I would say the vast majority of that time was uneventful and of no historic significance. Most of the time was with VMFA-314, but some time was with VMFA-531 and MAG-11. My memory of specific dates is very poor and the only things that might have some historic significance were when I was assigned to MAG-11 G-2. In preparation for a few minor military actions and exercises, I would brief and debrief fighter pilots on certain aspects of their missions. All of which was classified "secret" or "NATO secret", and obviously, even if I could remember useful details, I could not talk about them. Fighter pilots have little opportunity to engage in the stuff of conspiracies, and their activities are generally covered in aspects relative to the mission, and not the base from which they departed.
FYI, I'll support the inclusion of Col. Sabow's death in the El Toro article based on the unusual coverage it has garnered, but I will not support the implication of a conspiracy without multiple extraordinarily significant sources. IMO, Sabow's new title and the fact that that title was based at El Toro are the best courses of action for building onto the El Toro story. I imagine holders of that title tend to move up to even more prominent positions. You might also want to find out what that title means and how many similar positions exist, like for the eastern region, pacwest, and europe. Good luck. I'll help in any way I can. --JJLatWiki 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Before I comment more, I wanted to observe that dark conspiracies to control the US government would have a hard time prevailing without the timely support of fighter pilots, unwitting or otherwise. ;-) Thanks for your help! JPatrickBedell 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite right about fighter pilots. Although I think their involvement would be less called for than that of a cargo or transport pilot, though still not incomprehensible. I have helped carry birthday and christmas gifts that pilots stowed behind the seat or in an empty maintenance panel, so I assume something illegal or part of a conspiracy could just as easily be transported that way. --JJLatWiki 21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Azarakhsh

Hello! I noticed you un-did my edit on the Azarakhsk aircraft. I am going to change the "citation needed" to a direct link, as to avoid any confusion. If you have any questions, please leave me a message! Padishah5000 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again! I made some changes to the article, and I would like to know what you think. I also am searching for a photo of the aircraft that has a public use copyright. I believe I found one from 1995 or 1996, but I am debating using it. It is black and white, and rather grainy, and literally looks exactly like and F-5 II. Also, the article mentions the N-019 Topaz radar possibly being used by the aircraft. I see no citation for that, and on a purely personal level, do no see how that system could even fit into the nose of an F-5. Any thoughts on this? Padishah5000 16:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Everything that I've read and seen indicates that Azarakhsh literally is an F-5 from their existing inventory. It might use some locally manufactured parts, maybe even a significant percentage, but I doubt it has 0% original Northrup components. The information available on any Iranian development can only be based on the propaganda released by their spokespeople and speculation by outside experts. I was never particularly troubled by the Topaz claim because it's possible to modify the system with components that will fit into a slightly modified nose. Some performance would be sacrificed of course, but I think it could fit. I left it in the article because I didn't find it particularly contentous and because the defenders of the Iranian fighter planes became too agressive for my level concern. In my opinion, Azarakhsh and Saegheh are nothing more than an attempt to keep as many F-5's flying as possible, usually by cannibalizing parts from some F-5's to make another F-5 flyable. I sincerely hope you find reliable sources of information. Even grainy black and white images are better than nothing. Good luck. --JJLatWiki 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You raise some good points. The TAU article I linked to might very well be a biased source in some form. I myself am no expert on Israeli sources, and fully admit that they might have their own purpose for any suggested claims, just as the Iranian government would for propaganda related reasons.. The "Azarakhsh" might very well be an original Iranian F-5 from the 70's, or one acquired on the open market, from Ethiopia, for example, since I recall reading that Iran purchashed 12 or so airframes from that source in the early 90's, and had them rebuilt into operational form. Or, it actually could be a case where the Iranians produced one or more partial or complete airframes, coupled with original F-5 engines and avionics. We may never know for sure. Interestingly enough, from all the sources I have read, the Iranian "Saegheh" is 100% certain to be an original Northrop F-5 II, with a composite structure added to the frame to support a twin-tail configuration. I guess the ultimate arbitrator in such an arguement will be if Northrop Grumman follows the path of Bell Textron, and actually files a lawsuit against the Iranian government in federal court for unlicensed production. As of yet, I have not heard of NG following any course of legal action, such as Bell did last October, in regards to helicopter production. Oh, as far as overzealous "defenders of the Iranian fighter planes" are concerned, I have dealt with them in times past as well. As an "old school grognard", I always believed that facts are the ultimate weapon against fanciful ideas. If you ever need help in searhing for data to deal with such single-minded editors, just drop me a line! I pride myself in dealing with available raw facts, as opposed to absurd proclimations from the Iranian government. Padishah5000 06:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the black and white pic I have is literally just of an F-5. It is "labeled" as an Azarakhsh, and seems to be from an open source, and I will double check to make sure. It of course does not remove the simple fact that it might actually be an original F-5, simply labeled as a "new fighter" for the Iranian newspaper. I will link what I have to your talk page for your opinion, when I am certain it is not private property. Really makes me wish something would happen in that part of the world, if only to make any of this particular questions that are so annoying, get answered! Padishah5000 06:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The value of the JCSS information regarding the Azarakhsh is minor in the extreme. It seems to be no more than a numerical summary of the other articles that mention the plane. It says nothing more than; 6 made, 6 in service, 30 planned, indigenously developed. All of that information is contained in the GlobalSecurity reference. But JCSS may turn out to be an interesting source in the future. --JJLatWiki 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the value of a Northrup Grumman lawsuite, in my opinion, if Bell actually did file a lawsuit against the government of Iran over unlicensed production, it was purely cosmetic. The value of such action is fodder for academic discussion only. Their lawyers know that they have no hope to stop such production or collect licensing fees. So the only reason to file such a suit is to demonstrate that they are actively attempting to protect their rights in the event that an otherwise friendly nation moves to produce an NG product without authorization. --JJLatWiki 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
True, there really can't be any result from such litigation with the current situation between the U.S and Iranian governments. Maybe Bell will get lucky in a few years, if the situation changes, but I am not holding my breath on that. Its a shame that the only info available on the Bell suit is in minor news briefs. Padishah5000 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Finally, I don't share your wish for something to happen in Iran. I would rather the truth never be known if military action is the only way to know the truth. I have absolute confidence that Iran's airforce would present little challenge to any US led attack, but the repercussions could easily get tragic for the region, if not the world. The unanswered questions about Iran's fighter programs are lot less interesting than the speculation. --JJLatWiki 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hah! Sorry about that. I was being alittle sarcastic when I wrote that, I suppose. For the record, the last thing I would want to see is a war that kills scores and scores of people, just so an armchair general like myself can solve some little puzzle in my head. At anyrate, I do thank you for the responses you gave, and if you feel that my link was redundant in the article in question, please feel free to remove it, and the rest of my edits to the article. You seem to be very knowledgible on these topics. Padishah5000 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montini Catholic Edit

I left you a note on the talk:Montini Catholic High School (Lombard, Illinois) page but I thought I'd drop a note here too. I noticed that you deleted some of my information on the Montini Catholic High School (Lombard, Illinois) article and I was hoping for an explanation so we might reach a consensus. My information was sourced. Additionally, I noticed that you deleted some information as a "senseless marketing ploy" I believe. Keep in mind that, though this is an encyclopedia, some colorful wording can be used. For instance, you deleted "small, family atmosphere" but that is sincerely Montini's aim (check their website) and, as they have a 1:12 student to faculty ratio, I'd say they've achieved it. If that wording is inappropriate you should delete "established themselves as a powerhouse" from Montini's rival, Driscoll Catholic. Throw in some adjectives too. Eris11 22:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied there. On a side note, I don't see why a 1:12 ratio defines it as a "family atmosphere". I only stumbled onto Montini and have been hanging around since. I'll take a look at Driscoll and clean things up there too, if I can. "Established themselves as a powerhouse" is definitely too colorful. --JJLatWiki 00:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Kheibar

This isn't propaganda, it was an Iranian victory that fact stands thoght they had heavy losses. I didn't mean the sentence: "the only thing that saved [the Iranian troops] was the fact that they had so many soldiers that where all eager to fight out of loyalty to their nation" as propaganda, I said this because when Saddam attacked he thought the Iranian people would turn against their gouvnerment as the Mullahs aren't that populair, however the people out of loyalty to their nation joined the Army and fought hard, this sentence was not supposed to sound like propaganda, I meant with it that the soldiers fought out of loyalty to their nation and not out of loyalty to their gouvnerment and well no one can denie that they had so many soldiers, qand well eager to fight, that they where, it's not like they where all demotivated and forced in to battle. As for the List of countries by number of total troops, it's no gimic to make Iran have a list where they where on top, actually something I usually don't mention, I didn't start it but the list only had 10 nations in it (with Iran on top), not a top 10 no just 10, some where missing, the fact that I added over 140 countries to the list is why I see it as an artickle by me, not that I own it or something, anyone can edit it if they wnat, no one does. The argument with maccuty was that Basij has 90,000 active memebers, 300,000 reserves and 11,000,000 volunteers, he had a source wich didn't mention the volunteers so he thought they weren't there. Now I have also made articles about battles that Iran lost, Operation Dawn 3 for instance. The Honorable Kermanshahi 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand and accept that you did not intend for it to sound like propoganda, but in my opinion, much of your wording is not NPOV. You might have been a participant in the operation and have first hand knowledge that the Iranian troops were participating out of loyalty, but that doesn't count for anything in Wikipedia. Do you have non-trivial sources that support the notion that the Iranian forces fought out of loyalty and it was that loyalty that saved the day? If not, such statements should be removed. You described Operation Dawn 3 as the "least successful", but it seems more like it was "worst defeat" of the Dawn operations. "Least successful" is a flattering way to say, "worst defeat" and such flattery dishonors truth. As far as the List of Countries by Total Troops, I know that you did not start it and that you've added a great deal to the list, but it still seems like a gimmick to me. The person who actually did create the list may be the one most guilty of exploiting the gimmick, but I think it is a gimmick none-the-less. You've perpetuated the gimmick and built up the list to give the article the appearance of being more meaningful. The way you've edited the list and defended it in the discussions leads me to believe that IF someone found a source that described some Chinese "paramilitary" force that was made of "volunteers" from the general population of every man and woman between 15 and 49 adding 500,000,000 "troops" to their military, you would find a way to rename the list so that Iran was still on top. I get the sense that when you edit you are working to ensure Iran's honor is upheld more than anything else. That's just my opinion, I could be misjudging you. Feel free to ignore my opinion or use it in any way you like. --JJLatWiki 22:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the List of countries by number of total troops isn't a gemic, some people (like me) are interested in this and would like to see a ranking of how many soldiers nations have. Thats how I started with Wikipedia, as you might have noticed as I used to edit these lists so much, I wanted to know wich countrie had the biggest army and typed it in on google, then I found this and later started expanding it, I didn't do it for Irans honour, I did it cause I thought it would be so good that all kind of people would look here and read things wich I wrote, just realising that I was the one that had put all this was quite ice. As for the Iran-Iraq war battles, I'll re-read them and see what I can change to make 'em sound more neutral. AS for Irans troops loyalty to their nation, it says on many places, in almost every story about the Iran Iraq war it is mentioned that one of Irans biggest advantages was how motivated their troops where, or that Saddams big mistiake was to think that Iranians would like him to kick out ther gouvnerment but underestimated their loyalty to their nation. Of course numbers also played a big role in this war. The Honorable Kermanshahi 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I wish you the best of luck and satisfaction in your edits. --JJLatWiki 23:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic politicians page

Hello; unfortunately, I've just come across your notice on my talk page re List of Catholic politicians. After carefully reading your arguments, I tend to agree with most of them- but: as I see it, these "denominational" lists are, more or less, of the same kind. Just browse through [Category:Lists_of_Christians] or similar stuff; for instance List_of_Protestant_authors or List_of_Jews_in_politics are at least as superfluous as the mentioned Catholic politicians list. As I see it- these lists are for fun (but they have to be factually correct, of course), and Catholics are split in many categories and lists because it's so many of them. Frankly, I don't intend to spend much energy on bettering this (or similar ) page(s) & you do what's the best for wiki as an info source. But, stick to the basic fairness: this list has as much meaning as the similar ones pertaining to other denominations. So, if this one goes, the others should follow. Best Mir Harven 20:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mir Harven. I agree such lists can be fun, entertaining, and even useful. I invite you take part in the debate over a similar list of Shia Muslims. If we are to succeed in clearing these particular lists, it will take more than a handful of concerned editors all with a similar respect for the policies against such lists. --JJLatWiki 14:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of list deletion proposal or AfD nom.

If you would like to be notified on your talk page any time I add a {{subst:prod}} tag to or nominate for AfD any of the many indescriminate lists of people connected only by a common religious affiliation, please add your user name to the following list:


[edit] Azarakhsh News Photo Release

Hello JJLatWiki! I just had a quick personal question for you. What is your professional opinion of that recently released news photo of the "Azarakhsh", notably the different wing/engine air intake relationship. Any thoughts? I had seen a proposed drawing of the variant some time ago(actually dubbed Azarakhsh-II in 2003), but that is the first actual photograph of it, minus a circa 1995 release that simply looked like an F-5E. I would love to hear your input, as you seem very knowledgeable in this field. Padi 11:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen a new picture. I no longer get to spend the kind of time I would like researching aviation technology. The only new picture I've seen is the one in this IRNA article. However, that particular picture looks like the years-old Global Security image you alleged to be Photoshopped, and which I agree is Photoshopped. Can you give me a link to the image? I've been anxious for new data on these planes. --JJLatWiki 14:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ignore that. I just saw the new image on the Azarakhsh article. It's an interesting image. The obvious difference is the mid-body wing with extended strakes, and the position of the elevators are closer to mid-body. The engine intakes are still very small, indicating that engine thrust, and therefore top speed, remains low. I'm skeptical about the authenticity of the image. It seems like reporters were given the image, but did not actually witness it either in flight or on the ground. At least we got to see video of the IAMI Saeqeh flying. --JJLatWiki 15:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting, and I thank you for taking the time to give your input into the matter. You raise two very good points. One, that it could very well be a digitally doctored picture given to an "official" Iranian news agency for distribution, not to mention the fact that no actual video of this claimed incarnation of the F-5 seems to be available. Second, that the aircraft's power plant cannot be significantly different, due to the aircraft's small air intakes. I am going to double check the copyright on that photo, and I once again I am glad to hear your analysis. Padi 23:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I'm sending you this message, since it looks like you've been a recent contributor to the page... Korny O'Near (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You're either with us, or against us

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article You're either with us, or against us, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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 agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of You're either with us, or against us.

[edit] Image uploading

I noticed your trying to add an image to the ULTra article. Uploading images requires use of the Upload file link (at left side of page) rather than the article creation method of clicking on a new link. I also suggest you consider uploading images to Commons, where they can be used by any Wikipedia project. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had uploaded it, though not to the Commons, prior to creating the link, but an Admin deleted it seconds later based on CSD#I3. I've [for his advice]. Maybe you have some advice on how accomplish the desired end? --JJLatWiki (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah. The restriction which requires a specific caption does not get along well with reuse and derivative work requirements in Wikipedia and Commons licenses. If they request a specific caption then we can ignore the request, but if they require a specific caption then we can't use it because of the need to be able to modify the image (or in this case the image+caption package). That's why I added a photo request tag to invite someone to find/create a free image. We know several locations (test track and track under construction) which could be photographed, whether by invitation, from outside, or from overhead (although most people don't get to choose where their pilot will fly in the area). -- SEWilco (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I see. Then it seems that Wikipedia should be safe since the caption is a request and not a requirement, "we do ask that you use the caption". What do you think? --JJLatWiki (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, your "Adding comments" popup box obscures the end of long sentences such as this one which has extra words in order to ensure with certainty that it is overly long and reaches the right end of the screen so it will run under the box unless you are using a very wide monitor or several Xinerama monitors side by side so as to have a very wide virtual screen and thus you don't notice the problem which others see due to the box never covering the end of the text. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There just isn't enough talk going on on my talk page, so I never noticed that problem. I'll fix it soon. --JJLatWiki (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I see somebody else has already helped you. From the statement here, you might be able to get away with tagging it as {{attribution}} - personally I'd contact the company for clarification about reuse and derivative works. Regards, east.718 at 20:48, January 31, 2008
I've uploaded it again using the {{attribution}} template. What is your opinion as to how well it will hold to scrutiny? --JJLatWiki (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks OK. If anybody questions it, I'd email the copyright holder and ask for specifics. east.718 at 03:19, February 1, 2008
Thanks. I've emailed them in the past and gotten no response. Maybe I'll try contact their U.S. consultant. --JJLatWiki (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PB-244854

I do not understand why you cut the Reference to the DOT study PB-244854 that was an part of the process for building Morgantown. It is the blueprint, Morgantown the execution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillJamesMN (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

BillJamesMN, I've tried repeatedly to assume good faith in your contributions, by that I mean good faith that your contributions are for the benefit of Wikipedia. I've tried to advise you on matters of protocol and policy. In regards to PB-244854, you've taken an insignificant government assessment and read into it anything that you personally feel supports your conclusion, AND you've ignored anything that does not support your conclusion. You've inflated the significance of the document into an intentioned blueprint for Morgantown, PRT, ending oil addiction, and how to deal with peak oil. While I feel it is none of these things, your edits amount to original research in contradiction to an official policy of Wikipedia. --JJLatWiki (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
On a more personal note, you should be more careful how you use such sources, because this one can very easily be used against PRT. Case in point, take a look at page 22 of the PB-244854 PDF file, there the assessment says, "Even allowing a generous amount for one-time R & D charges, these systems have proved very costly for the amount of service that they can provide." If you are going to use a technology assessment as a building block to support PRT development, you probably don't want such negative quotes. --JJLatWiki (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ULTra pic

I see you added the picture of the ULTra test track to the ULTra article, but it is a fair use image, not public domain. Can we use this image in the main PRT article as well, or is that not permitted because it's fair use? It'd be nice to have a photo on the PRT article, but I don't want to add it if it would be against policy. ATren (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation is subject to the whims of the Admins, so I wouldn't want to push it, BUT... The way I interpret their permission, "You are welcome to use these images which are of the highest resolution available, but we do ask that you use the caption: "Advanced Transport Systems Ltd. www.atsltd.co.uk"", is that anyone can use the images for anything they want as long they include the caption. Except for the caption, it seems to be unrestricted use. Which is why I was advised by an Admin to use the "attribution" template instead of the fair use template. --JJLatWiki (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my feeling as well - I don't want to push it. I'll get permission from someone before I do it (do you know any image-centric admins that would be able to help?) I've also spoken to the inventor of Mist-er PRT about releasing some of the images of his prototype (see [3]), and he's willing to do that. That'd be nice, because then we'd have prototype pics of both a supported and suspended system. ATren (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't really know any admins at all. The Mist-er looks much more refined than say, JPods. But I feel that both (like most) have been designed with far less thoughtful analysis than J.E. Anderson's designs. Speaking of which, I think that's a separate category from JPods/Mist-er suspension and ULTra's. In fact, what would you call ULTra's guildeway technique? Essentially, ULTra uses a narrow, dedicated, separate roadway. I guess that would make it a "track". If the cars follow something embedded in the center of the floor of the track, then the walls aren't technically necessary. Anderson's design has a passenger compartment that sits on top of its drive unit, which rides within a channel. Is that a significant difference from ULTra? Track vs channel? And then, what about the RUF style that kinda wraps around the guideway instead of being inside the guideway? --JJLatWiki (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)