Jump to content

User talk:Ken keisel/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation formatting -- more advanced

Hi Ken; you've completely mastered the heart of the mechanism, so if you'd now like to try the next step:

The <ref>Smith 1978, p.123</ref> approach I showed you earlier is fine, but it means that the "Notes" section of the article contains multiple identical entries. However, there's a way to condense these and make the "Notes" section easier to navigate when people are trying to find something in there. From the point of view of someone editing the article, there are two complications:

  • the first time you cite a page in a source is different from every other time that you cite that page
  • when you introduce that page for the first time, you need to think up a unique "name" for it

As an example, consider page 7 of Outlaw's book. Using <ref>Outlaw 2004, p.7</ref> every time certainly cites the source accurately, but generates a separate footnote every time that you do. A more streamlined approach would be:

  1. think of a "name" for this citation; it pays to keep it short. In this example, I'll call it "outlaw7"
  2. the first time you use the citation, build in the "name":
    <ref name="outlaw7">Outlaw 2004, p.7</ref>
  3. Now, on every subsequent occasion, use:
    <ref name="outlaw7"/>

Now there will be only one entry in the "Notes" section for that page in Outlaw, and all the citations in the text to that particular page will share the same number. Note that if you cite a different page from Outlaw, you would need to follow the same process again to create a citation for "outlaw16" or "outlaw256" or whatever.

There's no compulsion to do it this way; but at the very least, an understanding of how this works might be useful to you sometime when figuring out how some article is structured when you're deep down in the guts it :) -- Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

They were not divided / Jagdtiger

The wiki page for the film says a Jagdpanther was in the film, but doesn't mention a Jagdtiger. Is it one or both?

Also, it requires proper citation, I suggest using Template:Cite video with a time reference.

(Hohum @)

There is both a disabled Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger in the film, thought the Jagdpanther is rather hard to see. I will try to get the time reference for each. There's an amazing abundence of armour in that film, far more than what's currently listed. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN

The article LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements set forth at WP:BIO.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Your user page

Are there two different Ken Keisels contributing under this same account? I ask, because your user page seems to imply that; but I don't think that's a proper practice under the username policy. JohnInDC (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see that another editor had this same question a few months ago, but he never got an answer. So I'll be clear: Your User Page describes two Kenneth Keisels, Kenneth G. and Kenneth M. Which are you; and, whichever you are, who is the other and why is his biography on your user page? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, yes. You are the one who just posted that a the 'The Washington Post' is a "weak reference". You still haven't explaned on that page why your claim isn't POV. As for why I mention my father in my biography, he is 89 years old and does not use a computer. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the explanation. It's confusing to other editors I suppose because User Pages are generally for, well, users. I understand it now. (As for the Post - when you read my response there you'll see that I was commenting that the sourcing was "thin" - that is to say, not abundant - rather than "weak". I think we both agree it would be silly to challenge the Washington Post as not a reliable source!) JohnInDC (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JohnInDC (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Washington, DC

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Washington, DC. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JohnInDC (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The matter has been turned over to administrators for review. Since JohnInDC is also the user who is challanging the article I created on LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN both of these issues are now subject to evaluation by administrators. I have discussed my position on the article's Talk Page, and JohnInDC has not responded. I don't mean to be tough, but when you challenge information backed-up by 'The Washington Post' merely because you and your friends have never heard of it, it's best to get administrators involved early since there is very little I can say that would produce meaningful results against such a line of reasoning. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mitchell article

Ken -

I've noticed that most of the article came straight from the Post obituary and is a copyright violation. I've raised this issue at the AfD page and am dropping you a note so that you might get a chance to fix the problem before someone requests speedy deletion (which is I think the likely outcome.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I read the instructions a bit more closely at WP:copyvio and decided that didn't leave much room for inaction. I blanked the portions that were copyrighted and put up a notice. JohnInDC (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032801770_pf.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! JohnInDC (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not re-insert close paraphrases of material from that obituary again. Please read the information above on how not to violate Wikipedia's rules on copyright. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely, but you have to be very careful about this. Most factual statements about a person, place, or event cannot be copyrighted, and quotes can never be copyrighted. While the obituary as a whole is copyrighted, the factual information contained in it can be re-used without infringement. I could not, for instance, write "Bill Smith was born on December 12th, 1953 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin" and copyright it. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted, as you did at Anthony A. Mitchell. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

There. You asked a while back how to set up archiving, so I did it for you yesterday. Are you satisfied with the results, or do you want me to undo it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this is fine. Thank you. It appears that you have issued a block against me for copyright violation. I explaned above the limitations of what information taken from the obituary can and cannot be copyrighted. The changes I made carried the factual information from the obituary, but the wording was changed more than enough to avoid copyright violation. As I previously stated, factual statements regarding a person, place, or event have significant copyright limitations. If this were not the case than almost all of the information contained on Wikipedia would be a copyright violation because of its use in the original referenced sources. You did not respond to the information I posted above, or enter into a discussion about you position before blocking me. If you review U.S. Copyright laws you will see that there is nothing I placed in the article that would have violated copyright law. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's WP:Copyright policy is significantly stricter than US Copyright law. If after reviewing the policy, you still feel that you weren't in violation of it, you can appeal your block to another admin, using the instructions in the block template. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop at CMU (Aug 15)

Since you are one of the editors in the Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Carnegie Mellon University, I'd like to invite you to the Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop that will take place at CMU on Aug 15 (this workshop is open to general public, and is a joint imitative of CMU and Pitt). There will be another workshop held at Pitt in the Fall as well. It will cover how to include Wikipedia in one's course (WP:SUP) and also how to become a Wikipedia:Campus Ambassadors. Pennsylvania has currently only one ambassador (myself) and it would be great if we could recruit at least several more. Ambassadors help course instructors, showing them how Wikipedia works, and interact with students. Many current ambassadors come from the body of students, faculty and university staff; it is a fun adventure, and adds to one resume/CV, to boot :) If it sounds interesting, feel free to ask me any questions, or to come to the workshop.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Request to be unblocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ken keisel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No copyright violation took place

Decline reason:

You either do not understand or are deliberately ignoring the point that this is a matter of Wikipedia policy, not U.S. copyright law. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

On 27 July 2011 my account was blocked by SarekOfVulcan for copyright violation. Previous to this the article had been "blanked" on two separate occasions by JohnInDC, who had previously demonstrated strong reservations about the subject of the article by first placing a citation for deletion on it for lack on notability, and when it quickly became apparent that this tactic was failing he cited it again, this time for copyright violation and plagiarism.

Copyright violation and plagiarism are both very serious accusations, and the prosecution of them should be done with great care. All supporting evidence should be clearly presented, particularly when the accused is a long-time editor with thousands of edits in their history. In this instance editor JohnInDC offered no specific information to support his accusations of plagiarism, and only that he felt the article was too similar to a 'Washington Post' obituary as justification for the accusation of copyright violation. He has still offered no supporting evidence for his accusation of plagiarism.

During a brief discussion titled "Disruptive actions by JohnInDC" on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive712 SarekOfVulcan became involved. SarekOfVulcan deleted roughly 60% of the article and removed the copyright violation citation. SarekOfVulcan' argument appears to be that he felt the contents of the article were too similar to the obituary in the 'Washington Post', though much of the information that he allowed to remain was obtained from that source, and much of what he deleted was taken from uncopyrighted web sites. On my talk page I pointed out that the information in the article was factual data about an actual person, place, or event, and as such was exempt from U.S. Copyrighting. I restored the text, having further modified the wording to make certain that no passage could be considered a copy of the text of the original source. At this point SarekOfVulcan blocked my account for one week.

One of the prime requirements of users adding material to Wikipedia is that the information be obtained from a source that is both credible and verifiable. The 'Washington Post' is indisputably both, and serves as an excellent source for information. Information contained in the 'Post's' obituaries fall under the 1976 Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 102), specifically article 102b, which states "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." Article 102b serves as the foundation on which the editing process of Wikipedia is based. It bars any author from receiving copyright protection for any factual information related to an actual person, place, or event. Although I have based my editing on this statute, just to be on the safe side I contacted Mr. Matt Schudel, the Washington Post journalist who authored the obituairy I referenced for my article. Here is what Mr. Schudel had to say after reviewing the actions of SarekOfVulcan; "It is my understanding that the facts of Mr. Mitchell's life, including his date of birth and the fact that he survived a dramatic plane crash in Brazil in 1960 -- which was well documented in the news media at the time -- are in the public domain and do not fall under any applicable copyright laws."

Not satisfied with Mr. Schudel's explanation, and wanting to bring an end any possibility of SarekOfVulcan continuing to prosecute future incidents involving proper sourcing and referencing, I contacted Dr. Thomas A. Schwartz, Ph.D. Associate Professor of the School of Communication at The Ohio State University, and an expert on journalism law. Here is what Dr. Schwartz had to say about my concerns after reviewing the statements and actions of SarekOfVulcan; "Overall you have it right. I'm surprised the Wikipedia folks didn't look at their own entries on the subject. Here's what it says at one of several places that explains this: "A paper describing a political theory, for example, is copyrightable; it may not be reproduced by anyone else without the author's permission. But the theory itself (which is an idea rather than a specific expression) is not copyrightable. Another author is free to describe the same theory in his or her own words without violating copyright law, and in fact need not even give credit to the original author (although failing to do so may be considered plagiarism, an ethical transgression). Courts disagree on how much of the story and characters of a copyrighted novel or film should be considered copyrightable expression.""

In light of these comments it is clear that SarekOfVulcan is employing a much-too-broad approach to the concept of copyright violation with regard to sourcing from copyrighted material. This is extremely disturbing, because as an administrator it is his responsibility to guarantee the accuracy and validity of referenced sources. To discount copyrighted sources (when the source text has been revised, and cited) under the belief that referencing from a copyrighted source is a violation of U.S. copyright laws strikes at the very foundation of Wikipedia's referencing guidelines. As such, I stand behind the validity of my sources, as well as the opinions of Mr. Schundel of the Washington Post, and Dr. Schwartz of The Ohio State University, that SarekOfVulcan is completely wrong when he claims that my contributions to this article constitutes a copyright violation. While it is possible to obtain permission from Mr. Schundel to use the text of his article (and, in fact, this has already been done), I feel it is important that the distinction between what is and is not copyrightable be made clear to SarekOfVulcan at this time to prevent his opinion from becoming a reoccuring problem for editors. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest using paragraphs to make this a bit easier on the eye for reading? Peridon (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Peridon (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ken keisel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

there has been no violation of Wikipedia copyright policy Ken keisel (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:COPY then; it's linked to in your block message and isn't hard to find otherwise. The bottom line is, if you copy text directly from another source, it is a violation of our copyright policy, regardless of how well referenced the copy is. All text must be written entirely in your own words. Wikilawyering will not get you unblocked early; please do not appeal again until you have read and understood that policy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Both SarekOfVulcan and Beeblebrox have suggested "that this is a matter of Wikipedia policy, not U.S. copyright law," but neither have provided the Wikipedia policies they are citing. Personally, I find it extremely unlikely that Wikipedia would strongly encourage the use of established, verifiable, copyrighted sources as references, and at the same time create rules that greatly restrict the use of copyrighted sources. At this point I have searched through Wikipedia's guidelines, and have not found any such policies. Please provide the specific Wikipedia policies that you are citing. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple of comparisons between your version and the original, bolding sections that are identical in both.
Post obit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032801770.html:
As the Navy transport plane approached Rio de Janeiro in a dense fog, it collided in midair with a Brazilian airliner above the city's harbor, not far from the landmark Sugarloaf Mountain. Among the 61 people killed were 19 members of the Navy Band, including the assistant leader, J. Harold Fultz, and most of the string section. Three U.S. sailors playing cards at the back of the airplane were the only survivors.
"My dad was supposed to have been on that trip," his son Anthony E. Mitchell recalled. "Pop and Mr. Fultz had been out to dinner, and as they came up the gangplank to the ship where they were staying, that's when Mr. Fultz said, 'Mitch, I don't need you tomorrow. Why don't you stay here?' "
The crash devastated the remaining members of the band, but Navy officials ordered the musicians to continue with their South American tour as if nothing had happened.
Your revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_A._Mitchell&oldid=441627259
As the Navy transport plane approached Rio de Janeiro in a dense fog it collided in midair with a Brazilian airliner above the city's harbor, not far from the landmark Sugarloaf Mountain. Among the 61 people killed were 19 members of the Navy Band, including its assistant leader, J. Harold Fultz, and most of the string section. Three U.S. sailors playing cards at the back of the airplane were the only survivors. Lt. Mitchell and Mr. Fultz had been out to dinner that night, and as they came up the gangplank to the ship where they were staying Mr. Fultz said "Mitch, I don't need you tomorrow. Why don't you stay here?", saving Mitchell's life. The crash was the single worst event in the band's history, and devastated the remaining members of the band. Navy officials ordered the musicians to continue with their South American tour as if nothing had happened.
Post obit:
Cmdr. Mitchell was for many years the Navy Band's clarinet soloist and dance-band leader. He modeled his playing after that of Artie Shaw, the swing era clarinet star, and was equally adept at jazz, marches, patriotic songs, classical concertos and dance tunes-- all of which the band had to be prepared to play. (Another brother, Russell, was the longtime clarinet soloist with the Air Force Band.)
When he turned to conducting in the 1950s, he followed the example of another of his musical idols. Like Arturo Toscanini, conductor of the NBC Symphony Orchestra, Cmdr. Mitchell prided himself on being able to conduct the thousands of tunes in his band's repertoire entirely from memory, without using a musical score.
Your revision:
LCDR Mitchell modeled his playing after swing era clarinetest Artie Shaw. Mitchell was equally adept at all the forms of music the band had to play, including; jazz, marches, patriotic songs, classical concertos and dance tunes. When he turned to conducting in the 1950s he followed the example of another of his musical idols, modeling his conducting on Arturo Toscanini, conductor of the NBC Symphony Orchestra. Cmdr. Mitchell prided himself on being able to conduct the thousands of tunes in his band's repertoire entirely from memory, without using a musical score.
This is not defensible. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Claiming you don't know what the policy is is also indefensible since it was explained to you, with links to the relevant policy on the 26th by JohninDC, again when you were blocked by Sarek, and once again three days ago. If you are explicitly told something, with pertinent links, on three occasions over several days and still have no idea what we are talking about then you may have a competence problem. If, on the other hand you didn't bother to even try and read and understand those messages as they were posted one would hope you would take the time to do that now. Failure to abide by this policy again will almost certainly lead to this account being re-blocked on a more long-term basis, so now would be a good time to actually read the policy that has now been linked to this page four times in as many days. Or at least look at Sarek's evidence above and try to comprehend how obvious it is that you copied large portions of those edits word-for-word from the source material. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
As I have stated previously. The problem here in not that I have failed to read and understand Wikipedia's policies at the pages you have listed. It is that the pages you have listed do not back up your claim that Wikipedia's policies extend copyright protection to text that can not be copyrighted under U.S. law, nor do you cite any specific points on these pages (which are quite large) that specifically address the policy that you feel backs up your claim. In other words, it simply isn't there. I would suggest that you look at the text on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F . You will not that under the section titled "Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?" it states "Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, although the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation." If you compare the contents of other articles to the phrasing I used in my text you will see that the amount of revision made to the original obituary is consistent with acceptable revisions on other articles. There is, in fact, a limited number of ways you can state a simple fact. You accusation goes way beyond the spirit of Wikipedia's position. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I've been asked to take a look at your argument to see if I can help clarify.

This is not a simple statement of fact:

As the Navy transport plane approached Rio de Janeiro in a dense fog it collided in midair with a Brazilian airliner above the city's harbor, not far from the landmark Sugarloaf Mountain. Among the 61 people killed were 19 members of the Navy Band, including its assistant leader, J. Harold Fultz, and most of the string section. Three U.S. sailors playing cards at the back of the airplane were the only survivors.

This is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, which says (in relevant portion) "If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license." Non-free content policy and guideline do not equivocate in noting that "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method." All other information taken from non-free sources must be, as copyright policy notes, reformulated "in your own words" (emphasis added).

Those words are not yours; they belong to Matt Schudel and the Washington Post. You can only use them if you are directly quoting, and you can only directly quote if the quote is supported by WP:NFC guideline. This is explicitly our policy.

It is important that you grasp this, as the next step in such cases is an indefinite block. This is not a problem that the Wikipedia community at large takes lightly.

You may wish to review the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing; created by a long-time administrator experienced in Wikipedia's approach to copyright concerns, it includes some information on how best to put content into "your own words" so that we can use it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon that I have noticed this thread by my own watchlist, and felt compelled to comment. I was struck that Ken keisel demonstrates prowess in writhing, as the above comments show, yet chooses to import the encumbered text of another, which in my opinion exceeds close paraphrasing and egresses plagiarism. There is no point to make and policy is clear to these regards. I would like to see this editor, adopt by understanding, express through enunciation such understanding, and commence with quality contributions which are apparently capable. Why should you not rather publish prose of your own design, after being so endowed? My76Strat (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for you compliments. I have obtained permission from the author to use the Washington Post obituary in the article. Can you please explain how I do this so that there are no more problems? I have forwarded the email granting permission to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", but have not heard anything back from them. Thanks. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I have restored the pertinent information to the article. You will note that there is not one sentence that bears any resemblance to the original sources. In fact, the referenced material that has been added by others are now much closer in wording and paraphrasing than my most recent additions. I have also provided full references for all material listed. If there are any challenges to the most recent posting they should be made on the article's talk page. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for this delayed response. I think you should read this information on donating copyrighted material. Pay particular attention to statements regarding the donation and use of copyrighted material owned by someone else. In closing, please remember that just because you can reprint some information, such as public domain, does not imply that you should. I personally hold that it is better to paraphrase the text so as to be original. But that is an opinion. My76Strat (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 737

Just a note Ken concerning your recent discussion on the 737 talk page. You had a genuine concern about the statement that the lack of doors saved weight, although it had actually been removed before your first talk page edit! What should have been a discussion on your concern was sidetracked by a bit of who did what accusations. I appreciate you apologised to BillCat but then still did not have an appreciation of the edit sequence in the article. Can I just remind you to please check the edit summary of the article before making statements about other editors and motives, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

After citing the statement for removal I deleted it in my revision as of 18:24, 20 August 2011. Fnlayson restored the statement in his revision of 18:30, 20 August 2011. He added a reference to the statement in his revision of 00:40, 24 August 2011. That reference did not agree with the statement. When I pointed out the problem to him on his talk page I was under the belief that it was BilCat who had added the reference. Fnlayson agreed, and told me my gripe was with BilCat. Apparently the problem was actually Fnlayson all along, first re-posting this statement after I had deleted it, then adding a reference that didn't support the claim. - Ken keisel (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You still have not understood the edit sequence and who did what, perhaps it may be best to apologise to all concerned on the talk page and move on. I do see the an issue in the expection that a citation required would result in the removal of the text after only four days, it is usual for citation requests to be left for weeks not days particularly since this text has been in the article for a while and not a new addition. Take care with your edits and accusations Ken and as I suggest it may be best to move on. MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting your information on the ammount of time that should pass before the imformation is deleted. On the article VC-25 BilCat decalred that 24 hours was the appropriate length of time before deleting information cited for reference. Unless someone can prove him wrong I will go by his standard. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
From the documentation for the CN tag: "Except for certain kinds of claims about living people, which require immediate production of inline citations, there is no specific deadline for providing citations. Please do not delete information that you believe is correct simply because no-one has provided a citation within an arbitrary time limit. Where there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a citation can be provided."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
If this were true than I would be fully justified in restoring the information I posted to the VC-25 article without fear that BilCat would again remove it within his 24 hour requiement. I want clarification here that BilCat's actions were inappropriate. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
No, that sort of thing doesn't get discussed on user talk pages -- it belongs on article and policy talk pages and noticeboards. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Than please identify/link the correct noticeboard/policy talk page where it should be posted for discussion. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, if you'll check Ken's talk page history, you'll see that he has been warned on many occasions for adding uncited material to articles. It is in that context that I removed his addition to the VC-25 page, about 38 hours after he restored the item (and Fnlayson had added a Fact tag 3 mintues later). The item was related to the supposed announcement of the retirement of one of the VC-25, which I deem as something that does need a citation to remain. At no point did I ever place a time limit on Ken, and I certainly never said anything "24 hours" as a fixed time limit. I do note that Ken has still not provided a reliable source (or even an unreliables one) for the item in question, 9 days later. I did do an internet search to verify the information at the time, though I haven't searched for it since then. Perhaps I am being to harsh, and that is for others to judge, but given Ken's penchant for adding uncited info, I believe a hard line is needed with him. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Ken, my advice, for what it's worth (not much these days, considering inflation....), you've gone after the wrong guy, I added the reference source in question. I couldn't find a specific source that dealt with the issue, so re-edited the passage slightly and removed the cite needed tag. See the rest of the story on the B737 talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
Bzuk, I've re-checked the article log so many times, and I still only see the reference being added by Fnlayson in his revision of 00:40, 24 August 2011. I'm not sure how I could be missing an edit by you, but I have no reason to doubt your integrity, so I accept your explanation. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan, it is my understanding that you are not an administrator normally associated with aviation articles. I respectfully request that you sequester yourself from this discussion, and allow those familiar with the subject matter to resolve the issue. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Request respectfully denied. You're welcome to try to get a different result at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but watch out for those WP:BOOMERANGS... --19:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
BilCat, SarekOfVulcan states, "From the documentation for the CN tag: "Except for certain kinds of claims about living people, which require immediate production of inline citations, there is no specific deadline for providing citations. Please do not delete information that you believe is correct simply because no-one has provided a citation within an arbitrary time limit. Where there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a citation can be provided."" It appears you have taken it upon yourself to decide that 38 hours was appropriate based on your perception of my edits. None of the edits in question involved false information, or contained malicious intent, it was merely information that you felt should be cited with a reference. In this respect you have exceeded the policy Sarak mentioned, and I don't think you can deny that deleting information that was likely factual after only 38 hours is impolite at best. I have already apologized to you for my mistake, and I feel an apology is now due from you for your actions on the VC-25 article. If you wish to add a fact citation tag to my edits by all means do so, but give other editors a chance to locate references as well. There is nothing malicious going on here, and your response has been way over the top. As an explanation, I received the news about the VC-25 from the director of archives at the Air Force history office, who received it from the director of restoration at the museum. This shouldn't be viewed as so threatening. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Ken, Milb1 just pointed out via his page that I had added the original fact tag to the tire/hubcap section that got this all started, per this diff. I had fogotten that I had added several Citation needed tags in the edit where I had restored the 737 reenging info, and I didn't recognize it in the edit summary, and I hadn't checked the diff until now. So I did edit that section, but only that one time to tag it. Hence the confusion. My apologies for missing that. - BilCat (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Absolutely unsolicited advice following: In this virtual wickywackywonderland, which we both now inhabit, two conceits may be of use:

  1. Institute the water off a duck's back premise for any contentious exchanges with wiki editors/overlords.
  2. If the topic will not appear on the local/national/international news that evening/fortnight/decade, then it probably isn't all that important... Again, remember, totally disregard any of the above, but... 19:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Ken, please stop pasting my entire signature -- it's distracting. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please say something nice. :) - Ken keisel (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Umm... I haven't blocked you lately, that's nice, right? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL! - Ken keisel (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Ken, I'm sorry if you think I'm being unreasonable here, but when it comes to aircraft on display/survivors, you have a history of not citing reliable sources. I'm not doubting the veracity of the VC-25 retirement info, but personal knowledge is considered original research on WP, and can't be used. When the info is deemed important enough to release publically, I'm sure it will be released. Until then, the information is not verifiable, and shouldn't be on WP. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
What I think you're missing is that I have the ability to get the information long before it becomes available to the public in a press release. That gives Wikipedia an edge in providing upcoming changes to aircraft displays. If the information I'm providing starts becoming false you would have an argument, but that hasn't been the case. Why not deal with problems if and when they become problems and give me the benefit of the doubt? - Ken keisel (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Because, as pointed out above that is strictly against Wikipedia policy. WP:Verifiability is one of the WP:Core content policies, not just a random guideline to cast aside when convenient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. - BilCat (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to follow up on that, as I can see some contradictions in the advice given. If it is about a living person it needs a source even if it is uncontentious. Given that aeroplanes are not living people, there is less issue about needing to provide a source immediately, especially if other folks in the know agree the information is right. However, if challenged to provide a source, it is up to you to provide it, and if you don't and it is removed, then you would be the one in the wrong if you added it back without a source. Hope this is clear. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I think Ken's issue is with how long the item should remain in an article with a fact tag. You are right that when it's not rleated to a livign person, we have more leeway here. However, as Ken has admitted, this is insider info that hasn't been released. His edit summary at the time, "restored information - add a citation tag until I get all the document ation - they just got the word they're getting #2800", let us know at that time this wasn't publically relaeasd info, and that's why I removed it so quickly. - BilCat (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
BilCat, ask yourself, how does it benefit Wikipedia to delete this information? I think you're taking this way too far. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Kem, you've already admitted this isn't publically released info, and we have no idea how long it will be before the info is released, or if the gov't may make changes to the plan in the meantime. Your post contained several very specific points of info that ought to be cited, such as the timing of the replacement, the claim that its increased use came between 2001-1008, etc. Given the current environmnt of pending military budget cuts, and the fact that there is no planned replacement in the procument pipeline, to my knowledge, the plane may very well be kept in service beyond 2015, even if at a reduced usage. There are just to many unknowns to keep info we know isn't verifiable by reliable published sources. WP's policies exist for a reason, and no one is exempt, no matter how well-meaning they are. - BilCat (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
(Outdenting a bit - responding to the correspondence more generally). As I said, information not in a BLP does not need to be removed instantly, but if someone removes the information on the grounds that it is not cited, it may not be readded without a citiation. That's your standard requirement for verification. The other policy that may be relevant here is WP:CRYSTAL. Although this is normally invoked for entertainment productions and media events, the general principal that it is crystal ball gazing until the lawyers and accountants have signed up is probably true everywhere. If there is something that you can source the scuttlebutt to, you might say "it is being discussed" or "it appears to be proposed that", but if all you have is something in your email in-tray (which is what it sounds like), it will have to wait until something emerges to verify it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
As you can imagine, all activities involving the 89th Airlift Wing are subject to high security, so any information that does get out is unlikely to have documentation coming with it. The choices here are to have little or no new information in the article, or to add the solid information when it comes in, and continue searching for references or documentation as it becomes available. In the case of the retirement of 28000, the limiting factor for the lifespan of the VC-25 is not TT hours, but total takeoff/landings. 28000 was estimated to be okay for operation through 2020, but the connection the museum has to the 89th Wing explained that the administration from 2000 to 2008 discarded the use of all of the smaller VC aircraft that had traditionally been used by presidents for short flights. Instead, that administration used the VC-25s exclusively for all presidential travel. As a result, the number of takeoff/landing operating the aircraft was asked to perform increased dramatically, and the airframe has exceeded, or is about to exceed, its maximum T/L limit. The airframe cannot be overhauled as part of a SLEP once that limit is reached, and must be retired (especially considering who the passengers are). The current administration is evaluating its options, and a contract proposal has been offered for a replacement (which Airbus has stated they will not participate), but the current administration has indicated that they will not pursue any replacement aircraft in the current economic climate. VC-25 28000 will be decommissioned most likely around 2014, with its last flight being performed in a ceremony over the Museum in Dayton, as was the case previously with 76000. The museum staff are currently deciding which interior configuration in which to display the aircraft. It arrived at the beginning of George H.W. Bush's administration, but was operated most actively by his son. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I do see the problem. I strongly suspect [www.janes.com Janes] will have this information, but I don't have a current subscription. See if you can find someone who does. Some of those statements can be sourced separately (the airframe life, the attitude of the administration to be replaced). Alternately, if you could persuade the museum to publish on its website that it expects to get a one for display, that would be a reliable enough source for this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The Museum won't be able to say anything until they have an arrival date. The information is still sensitive, and they won't want to do anything to threaten their relationship with the 89th Wing. There will be an announcement made to members and friends of the Museum to notify them of the aircraft's arrival, but that will be just a few months before it arrives. A decommissioning ceremony like this will attract a crowd of several thousand. They had over ten thousand for the retirement ceremony for 76000, Kennedy's plane. The information about a replacement aircraft is already on the "Air Force One" article, but not that the current administration won't purchase one. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, that's clear enough. WP:CRYSTAL applies here - you can't say anything onwiki about what will be in the announcement until that announcement is made. The info about the replacement can probably be sourced - I'm sure a dig in the public archives will turn up the Obama administration saying they don't intend to pay for a replacement, for example (in the UK, someone would have asked the question at Prime Minister's Question Time, but I'm sure there's some way the US government would make the statement).Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The miliraty is accepting design submissions for a replacement aircraft, but unofficially the current administration will not be authorizing any funds for its construction. They're going to wait until after the 2012 elections to deal with $400M luxury aircraft. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I would imagine you can find a journo somewhere speculating similar. It seems school of the bleedin' obvious. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Image to identify an aircraft

Ken, to send me the image, go to my page and click on the Email this user "pointer" on the left toolbox. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

Bzuk, I can't find a Email this user pointer on your left toolbox. Can you send a link to it? - Ken keisel (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Just click the link you created LOL. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It just pops back with "No Send Address". I checked, and I have a valid email address registered with Wikipedia so I'm not sure what the problem is. Bzuk, please send me an email to [email protected] and I will send the photo back to you. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Conversation you may want to join

Hi Ken, please see the talk page regarding the Airco DH.9A's provisions for an internal bomb bay. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Witteman-Barling Bomber discussion

Thanks Ken, above and beyond...Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I agree. Any chance I can get a consensus on changing the name to "Barling XNBL-1"? I have a couple editors suggesting that change. Most researchers will be searching for the "Barling Bomber" and may be confused if they only find an aircraft called the "Whittman-Lewis". I really think the Ho-229 naming convention applies in this case. The Barling was never called the Whittman-Lewis in operation. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Even though consensus is generally thought to be "vote counting" it really is a more complex system of decision-making. The actual result of a consensus is the acceptance of a decision, or at least one, everyone can live with. My reading of the discussion string is that the flow is now more of a concession that the official and unofficial combining of names will prevail. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC).
I think that as long as the "Barling" name is first I could live with that. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Correction, I just returned from the Air Force archives at Wright-Pat where I had them pull the airplane's original 1923 specifications book. It identifies the aircraft only as the "Barling Bomber". Bzuk, I will forward a copy of my scans to you tomorrow. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, you forgot to notify the other involved editors of the posting you made at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, so I did that for you this morning. JohnInDC (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I was having difficulty getting the posting to appear. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ken_keisel/Archive_4&oldid=1144598370"