User talk:Lou Sander/Archive 9

What you don't seem to appreciate

Lou, I don't think you fully grasp the complexity and subtlety of certain issues. For example, what may look to you (and me as well) as obvious preferential treatment and playing favourites, is actually a finely nuanced and fully justifiable decision which is in no way based on any difference between, eg, a goose and a gander. Thus what looks to me, and perhaps to you, like a breathtaking lack of integrity and a breathtaking display of bias, is actually, well, hmm, how to put this, something else (apparently). Barleybannocks (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we're all clear on that, then. There could have been some terrible confusion. The Cap'n (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Poor Barleybannocks, poor The Cap'n! Don't despair. The fair-minded leaders of the Wikipedia Community, both formal and informal, are here to guide us to the light. I am SO happy for that. At the same time, you are right about my failure to grasp certain complexities and subtleties. Mea culpa. I can grasp the fact -- or is it a scientific law or principle? (I always get confused about the difference) -- that it is a serious offense to be insistent that reliable source A says X, IF one's betters declare it to actually say Y, or that it is actually unreliable. Beyond that, I remain hopelessly confused. In that state, I just defer to my betters. Lou Sander (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Baking powder

Thanks for contributing to baking powder. At the risk of seeming impolite, I am wondering how non-GMO is so relevant to this topic, especially in a lede section? It seems distractingly controversial to raise the GMO vs non-GMO theme in such a general article. Of course maybe I am over interpreting. My preference is to replace that image with what we had before, a picture of the baking powder itself. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Smokefoot: No big deal for me on GMO. The company just puts in on their package and emphasizes it. I like seeing the package AND the powder, with an appropriate-sized scoop. The previous picture could have been any white powder. I don't like getting into any controversies, and GMO is probably something potentially controversial, so I'll take it out. Lou Sander (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Done! Lou Sander (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I also like avoiding controversies. Agreed, one always wonders about the authenticity of images of generic white powders, but to a trained eye, many powders to have fairly distinctive consistency. BTW, if you have other suggestions for this article, please let me know. The article is visited heavily and I am trying to guess what readers would want to know. Cheers and happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Smokefoot: I got into baking powder from an interest in various quickbreads, though my basic relationship to food is that I eat it. I've contributed to the baking powder article somewhat over the years, and I'm surprised how much it comes up on my watchlist. My first recollection of b.p. is as an ingredient in my mother's kitchen 70 years ago -- I guess I still have some curiosity about it from those days. I also remember some little bathtub toys that used it (or maybe baking soda) as a propellant. That's why I took the picture of foaming b.p. and put it in the article. I was surprised how vigorous the foaming really was, and I imagine that general readers would be, too.

When I was taking the picture of the package, I noticed that they claim it to be "double-acting", but only list one acid in the ingredients. I've questioned them about it on their website. I don't really expect an answer, because labeling can be a hyper-sensitive issue with the FDA. I'm also wondering about this: The label lists monocalcium phosphate as the first ingredient, but the article says that it's usually the second. Labels have a tendency to list the predominant ingredient first. It's just something to wonder about. Lou Sander (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well if you can help get to the bottom of the double vs single acting thing, that would be nice. I am a non-baking chemist with access to excellent technical articles. They seem to explain the difference between single and double acting baking powders as I wrote in the current article. But I also have not seen the two different acids mentioned on containers of baking powders. I will start more carefully checking labels. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Smokefoot: I'm pretty sure that I also put in some sources about two acids = double-acting, but it was a long time ago. Time will tell if the Rumford people shed any light on it. In the meantime, I'm still just thinking how cool it is when ya put baking powder into hot water! ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Smokefoot: I've found some clues to the Rumford "double-acting" claim. Maybe your sources could provide more than just a clue. Apparently the monocalcium phosphate has some sort of two-part reaction. See http://www.clabbergirl.com/faq.php and http://www.culinate.com/articles/features/baking_powder for mention of this. Lou Sander (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

I just watched the movie and was curious about the book as well. Interesting story, I may have to read it some day... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I was an officer on a Navy ship in 1962 when the Saturday Evening Post series came out. I read it and really liked it. I loved the movie when it came out years later, and have seen it several times on TV. Great flick! Lou Sander (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

DANAS

Template and category have been created. Have fun. :)

{{DANAS}}

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons

May it be used enough that like the DANFS template, it gets redlocked because vandalism would affect too many articles. :) Also, you may want to take a look at the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons article, it could use some improvement. Naraht (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on that article right now. I'm also of the Burgh. Lou Sander (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Naraht: Done! Lou Sander (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Naraht: Now it's been used in two articles, VAK-208 and VAK-308. Looks good! Lou Sander (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

Disregard

 – My apologies, it is actually regarding your inquiry on the help desk. You seem to have already read the responses there. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 01:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Page move request". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Anon126 (talk - contribs) 23:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Anon126: This seems to be an error. I can't find anything about it. Lou Sander (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about one of the articles you're working on

Since it concerns one of the squadron articles that you're working on, I thought I'd point out this question that I just posted at the Help Desk. Dismas|^(talk) 03:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dismas: Thanks for the question. I responded on the Help Desk page. Lou Sander (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

• File:USSTulare.jpg
• File:USSBausellDD845.jpg

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

disambig question

Go ahead. Noting that I've been on Wikipedia for less time than you. :)Naraht (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Naraht: Yeah, but I haven't gotten involved much in disambiguation. I'm working on a DAB page in one of my sandboxes. I'll let you know when it's done. Lou Sander (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Naraht: The situation and a partial solution are described at User:Lou Sander/5. I'm not familiar enough with DAB matters to create the best and most elegant solution myself. Maybe you are, or maybe I should just copy the stuff from the sandbox page to the help desk. You be the judge. Lou Sander (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added a further reply to your page move question at the Help Desk: in brief, your moves should be undone for the reasons I have stated there.--ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your input here would be greatly appreciated! The Cap'n (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

VA-94 (U.S. Navy)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of VA-94 (U.S. Navy), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.wwiijeepparts.com/ForSaleStore/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=216.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The questioned text is in the public domain, as clearly stated in the article itself. I have removed your tag. Lou Sander (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

VA-95 (U.S. Navy)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of VA-95 (U.S. Navy), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.wwiijeepparts.com/ForSaleStore/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=216.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The questioned text is in the public domain, as clearly stated in the article itself. I have removed your tag. Lou Sander (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Second VA-95 (U.S. Navy)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Second VA-95 (U.S. Navy), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://95thallweatherattack.com/va95-history/va95-history-1952-1970.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The questioned text is in the public domain, as clearly stated in the article itself. I have removed your tag. Lou Sander (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Third VA-95 (U.S. Navy)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Third VA-95 (U.S. Navy), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://95thallweatherattack.com/va95-history/va95-history-1972-1995.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The questioned text is in the public domain, as clearly stated in the article itself. I have removed your tag. This is the third time this afternoon that you have erroneously tagged public domain text. Somebody needs to fix you. Lou Sander (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Lou, have you tried discussing this with MadmanBoht on the article-talkpage? Perhaps you can work out your differences thataway. MadmanBoht, are you sure that what Lou is doing deserves all this template-spam? I realize he is a very naughty editor, but giving him the same boilerplate again and again, seems kinda brusque. Show some humanity, for crying out loud.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

New articles look pretty sharp.  :-)   I would suggest that the naming-convention should prolly be tweaked, there are existing articles like VFA-31 which do not specify (U.S. Navy) in the title... and if memory serves, there is some rule that United States always has to be spelled out. There are a couple folks that might know, Acroterion and HJ_Mitchell are both in the military history project, methinks. p.s. Lou, I don't know what your 'religious' leaning is concerning infoboxen, but if you like 'em and do not mind google monetizing wikipedia pageviews, there is an example-infoboxen at the VFA-31 article. The are optional of course, and the work to add them is also not WP:REQUIRED if you have little interest. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@74.192.84.101: 1) The MadManBot thing has been fixed. They were very nice about it. 2) Naming squadron articles is pretty problematic overall, but especially with the "VA-nnn" squadrons, since there are many articles about Virginia state highways that are named "VA-nnn". When I'm done with all these squadron articles (which has become an obsession as bad as Sheldrakism), I'll try to address the overall squadron naming problems. 3) I'm not much into infoboxes, though they might have their place. I'd hate to get rid of the pictures at the tops of the articles, which are carefully selected to be purty, to mostly have a visible squadron designation on the plane, etc. Right now, I'm concentrating on churning out a lot of uniformly pretty good articles without doing a lot of extra work. You may have found my "list of squadron articles created", which is HERE. Lou Sander (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

VA-165_(U.S._Navy) — I messed around with this one, adding some further-reading-stuff (but I was too lazy to actually *do* the further reading myself :-) and doing to formatting-changes. If you like 'em, swipe the style, if you don't I won't cry a river. One thing I'm working on as a back-burner project is figuring out how to generate inline-maps using meta:WikiMiniAtlas. It would be cool to show the deployment-timelines, on a decade-by-decade basis. I may not have time to mess with your TODO-list, but I'll try and drop in to spy on your work from time to time.  :-)   p.s. That ping-thing only works for non-anons, if you wanna ping me you gotta do it the old-school way, on my usertalk. Thanks as always for improving wikipedia. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There's usually LOTS of further reading. Also there are some extensive websites made, for example, by people interested in the A-6, or who were in a given squadron. I'm going for quantity here, though, and I'll leave it to others to update that stuff. If I put up decent, well-referenced articles, others can come in and improve them.

In recently-created articles I'm only using DANAS stuff unless something is missing, like the date of disestablishment; that can usually be found in Naval Aviation News, but it can take a lot of Googling to find it. I've been looking for a way to indicate that the "Significant events" stuff comes from DANAS, but I haven't found anything better than one reference citation at the end. If it is to be divided into decades (a good idea), or if other stuff is to be added (a good idea if done well), the problem gets harder. The timelines stuff is interesting. A lot of people can't understand time intervals just from start dates and stop dates (I'm not good at it myself). That's why I include "long-lived" and "short-lived" and "15 years later" in some of the articles. BTW, I'm putting squadron names in BOLD because there was extreme confusion about them, and many re-namings, in the earlier squadrons. Also, I'm pretty pleased with improvements I've made to the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons article and its talk page. Lou Sander (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup, you are gonna turn into a WP:WikiDragon if you keep making articles for the other wikiFauna like this. Totally awesome, as valleyspeak says.  :-)   You can add a ref-tag directly to the section-header to indicate where the material in the section is sourced from. ==Milestones^[3]== Later, if the prose is filled out with e.g. newspaper reports of the events that DANAS is bullet-pointing, the section-ref can be moved inline on a per-sentence basis. The question of displaying confusing timelines is solved reasonably well in rock-band articles like Manic Street Preachers, which shows which members were in the band during what years. You could make a table like that with carriers-or-AFBs on the lefthand-column, for instance. Alternatively, you could make a table with countries-or-oceans as the lefthand-column.

  The name-changing-thing is tricksy. Here is what I suggest, though. In cases where the squadrons are renamed, such as VA-111 which later was renamed to VA-222 and is currently called VA-333, my suggestion is to make a main article called VA-333 (United States Navy) and then have the page VA-111 (United States Navy) be a redirect to the VA-333 (United States Navy)#1960s or whatever (and VA-222 redirect to #1970s say). That's up to you, though... and may be impossible to do without disambiguation-pages in cases where VA-111 is a modern helicopter squadron in the 2010s *and* a historical fighter squadron in the 1950s, or similar conflicts.

WP:WikiDragon, my scaly, tail-bearing hindquarters! These people "Often [do] not give close attention to grammatical or spelling details...". Armed with my new high-decibel keyboard, I ALWAYS give close attention to such. I am no more a dragon than Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, with many peer-reviewed papers in Nature, etc., is a scientist. As far as cool time charts, I will leave that to folks who have specific interest in it. I mostly care about starting a lot of pretty good articles about subjects that I know a bit about or am interested in. (I am becoming a decent historian of U.S. Naval aviation, I think.) In my experience, others (WikiJackals?) will come in and take care of moving things forward. I HAVE adopted your suggested style of starting the "Significant events" with bullets, rather than bolding them. It's easier to do, and it looks better. Also, I no longer bold the squadron designations unless there's confusion. I will take care of the renaming stuff after more deliberation and after I've done all the "VA-nnn" articles (which is getting close). BTW, please sign your %&#@# posts. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited VA-175 (U.S. Navy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inland Sea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

New articles

Hi Lou, it is customary for the author of an article to raise the talk poage by adding relevant project banners. In the cases of your US Navy aircraft squadron articles it would be the templates found at Template:WikiProject Aviation and Template:WikiProject Military history. You don't have to do the assessment just enter the class - stub, start, list etc. Happy editting--Petebutt (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I was wondering about that. I'm trying to make sure there's an article for each VA-nnn squadron that's mentioned in DANAS. The main body of work is done, and now I'm trying to find the ones I missed. When all that is done, I plan to go through everything and clean up the loose ends (like project banners, now that I know about them). In the meantime, I'll add the project banners to anything new. Lou Sander (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! You are making a good start.--Petebutt (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My basic motivation was to get my "articles started" total to 300. It all worked out, since I reached 300 just as I was running out of VA-nnn articles to do. There's an entire second volume of DANAS, with dozens of articles to be created, but I'm hoping that I don't get hooked on doing them. This has been like an addiction for the past few weeks. I've gotten pretty efficient at cranking out the articles, and I think that they look pretty good the way I'm doing them. Lou Sander (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

improving your squadron articles

I have modified one of your articles as an example of some of the things you could do to improve your articles. Check out VA-216 (U.S. Navy).--Petebutt (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Petebutt: Thanks! I was wondering how the infoboxes were done. I especially hoped that putting in an infobox could retain my carefully-selected images (rather than the squadron insignia that are common in these infoboxes). I'm just finishing up my "project", of including an article for every VA squadron that is in DANAS, making sure they are uniformly named, that there are appropriate redirects, etc. It has been fun, but it's been taking far too much of my time, over far too long a period. (I started it with the goal of achieving 300 articles created, which goal has been more than reached).

I want to do other things, but I'm extremely pressed for time. An important one is to set up an integrated scheme of disambiguation pages. There are a bunch of highways in the state of Virginia whose articles also start with "VA-nnn", and there's a hodgepodge of disambiguation notes and pages involving them and the "VA-nnn (U.S. Navy)" articles. I'd like to clean it up, but at the moment I don't know much about proper ways of doing it.

After that, I hope to work on article content, including Wikification where it hasn't been done, and, hopefully, infoboxes. BTW, I like the red links in the VA-216 (U.S. Navy). A lot of these appear in multiple articles, so it would be good for them to have their own articles.

Right now, I need to overcome my obsession with this stuff, and get back to my normal life. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to give you location for template - Template:Infobox military unit--Petebutt (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

infoboxes

Hi lou, The convention in Aviation and Milhist is that all articles should have an infobox. The one for military units can be found at Template:Infobox military unit. Hope this helps, Pete--Petebutt (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ireally should read my previous posts Doh!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)--Petebutt (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For your work on many articles about US Navy aircraft squadrons, I hereby award you this Barnstar YSSYguy (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation

For an example of a disambiguation page for a designation used multiple times by the Air Force, see 1st Reconnaissance Squadron (disambiguation) This is a case where one squadron (the current one, and the oldest unit in the AF) is clearly most notable. There are similar pages where there's no clear winner, like 2d Reconnaissance Squadron --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Very good! Thanks! I'm making progress on figuring out just what we have to work with here. Most of the squadrons with First, Second, etc. have only one article, usually for the last one in the series. That makes things a whole lot easier. I'm also getting a handle on the dates the various squadrons were established and disestablished, which should make the ulitmate renaming and disambiguation easier. Most of the articles in question are VA or VP squadrons, and I've laid out most of the information about them at User:Lou Sander/VP Table and User:Lou Sander/VA Table. Thanks for your help so far — please do keep looking in on this. Lou Sander (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Re authors 'writing' or 'publishing', it is quite common (in the UK at least) to talk about a writer 'publishing' a book, i.e. getting it published. Also a writer may write a book that remains unpublished. Valetude (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Valetude: Noted. Interesting point. I don't think that's very common usage here in the U.S., though. Publishing seems to be mostly producing and distributing the product of a creative act, rather than the creative act itself. See the Wikipedia article Publishing. Who actually does the producing and distributing is important to the status of the author: self-publishing one's work is one thing, having it published by a vanity press is another, and having it published by Cambridge University Press is yet another. I must say, though, that looking at online definitions of "publish" reveals a few that say/imply that write=publish. Mostly that seems to be in an academic context. It seems to me that to say that the controversial Coulter published her books is to allow for the misinterpretation that she printed and distributed them herself. The facts about her are that her creative works were bought, edited, produced, and distributed by noteworthy publishers, and a lot of people bought them. Maybe best is to say "the writer's book was published" or something like that. Lou Sander (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lou - just got your note. I think that might have blown over. But then again, with the subject of that article's history - maybe not. I've moved onto other stuff and am trying to be productive. Thank you for caring enough to contact me. Much appreciated CammieD (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Turkish Crescent

Mehaba Bahriyeli (Turkish: Hello Sailor). Thank you for your note on my talk-page. This is a rather obscure subject, but very mis-understood. Outrageous stories concerning the subject abound. I eyeballed your page and it appears we have many things in common. I look forward to working with you in the future. Best wishes, Önce Vatan Tjlynnjr (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC) .

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You deserve this for all your very *carefully referenced work* on U.S. Navy aircraft squadrons, and your willingness to discuss changes to the difficulties of designating them for Wikipedia purposes properly. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Also if it's not sensitive, which revolution were you involved in walking down a street 'unarmed and unafraid'? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: It was in the Dominican Republic, following the assassination of long-time dictator Rafael Trujillo. I don't remember the exact dates, and it wasn't a real hot "revolution", but it was sometime during the very short Juan Bosch era described HERE. I still remember a teenager in a sailor suit standing in an intersection with a gun, looking like he was guarding it. Maybe it was a machine gun, but I don't know. I probably didn't know enough to be scared. "It's not just a job, it's an adventure." Lou Sander (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lou. If you're ever interested, User:Marcd30319 is probably the resident enthusiast on Carrier Strike Groups and associated issues. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

AR Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Cap'n (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

The arbitration request involving you (Rupert Sheldrake) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. In particular, several arbitrators noted that the article is subject to Discretionary sanctions, so issues should be handled at WP:AE For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

TBAN modification

Seems that discussion at WT:Banning policy#Proposal to modify WP:TBAN has lapsed. Given that only one editor came out with a bold-font oppose bullet comment, do you think we can implement your suggestion? – S. Rich (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Srich32977: I'm thinking it should be implemented, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Lou Sander (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Two courses of action: 1. post a proposed diff on the talk page and see who salutes. 2. WP:BB on the project page with edit summary of "per discussion, implement consensus change". – S. Rich (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment

The stray text is "in process", designed eventually to accomplish a couple of technical purposes. (Appearance-only features, not ready for prime-time.) As you can tell, from the site, I am very little concerned with User page appearance. Sorry if it wasted time for you, visiting. Anything I can help you with? Feel free to ask, here (by ping) or there. Cheers Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Some common interests/backgrounds, and respect the mil article work in particular. Look forward perhaps to working with you on med technol or life sci business-related matters. Ping me any time. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic 2014 - Pittsburgh

Can you update the from side of the Pittsburgh meetup page with location and time, so that we can properly schedule this on the national WP:Wiknic page? (provisional information is OK)--Pharos (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

sic

Hi Lou!

Can you tell me why you affixed a "sic" to the title in this section? Thanks! — goethean 18:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. One of the publishers uses "The" before the title, one of them doesn't. I gave each of them a "sic", hopefully to avoid confusion. (Maybe I created confusion, though.)  ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I Ride an Old Paint

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of I Ride an Old Paint, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.stephengriffith.com/folksongindex/i-ride-an-old-paint/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Pibal/Ceiling ballons

I noticed this earlier. However, I don't think that PIBAL and ceiling balloons are quite the same thing. If you look at www.pilotballoon.com "the pilot balloon web resource" it says "...pilot balloons are made for the purpose of determining wind direction and velocity at various altitudes." Kaymont, who make balloons, say "...ceiling balloons are used to determine the altitude of a cloud base, pilot balloons (PIBAL) are used to determine wind speed and wind direction at altitudes from 15,000 feet (30 gram) to altitudes in excess of 20,000 feet (100 gram)." From the US government publication Federal Meteorological Handbook #3 (this is the full book), Chapter 6 page 6-9 item 6.16 says "A pibal should not be taken whenever low clouds or other phenomena would prevent the observation from reaching 900m (3,000 feet) above the surface,...". On the other hand a ceiling balloon is not going to be practical above 2,000 ft as it would take almost 5 minutes to reach that height at 460 ft/s. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 21:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather:You have a good point there. I don't have a lot of subject knowledge in this area, and just assumed because the two types of balloon look pretty much the same that they are the same thing, but used for different purposes. I'm wondering if there should be two separate articles, or all "weather balloon" articles should be combined in one, or what. I've done a LOT of editing and article creation, so I can and am willing to do the writing, etc. What I lack is the broad base of knowledge that you may have. It looks like the Kaymont people are experts, too. What do you think about all this? Lou Sander (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

PS - These guys seem to group ceiling and pibal balloons together. It's a puzzlement. Lou Sander (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Novalynx people look like they know what they are talking about. Not really sure what should be done about the articles. I've not really seen that ceiling balloons called weather balloons. If there are separate articles for weather and ceiling then pibal should have an article as well. One article on all three types might work depending on size. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 05:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: I wonder who in the world knows the most about terminology and function of lighter-than-air devices that are released from the ground and used to gather information? There seem to be little ones that are used to determine the height of cloud layers, little ones that are used to measure winds (by being visually tracked or by sending radio signals), and at least one type of big one that is used to measure all kinds of things. Wikipedia articles include Ceiling balloon, Weather balloon, High-altitude balloon, Skyhook balloon, and maybe more. Also Radiosonde and Dropsonde are related topics. Lou Sander (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking around a bit, there seem to be ceiling balloons, pilot balloons, and sounding balloons. They are explained and listed separately by Kaymont, which specializes in balloons. Novalynx, which is a broader-based weather products company, more or less groups the ceiling and pilot balloons together. Wikipedia's Weather balloon article is really about sounding balloons (if we allow that ceiling and pilot balloons are really weather balloons, too). The Ceiling balloon article was strictly about ceiling balloons until I stuck my ignorant fingers into it and added material about pilot balloons (which IMHO is important material that was not previously covered).

I'm thinking that we should get consensus that all three are "weather balloons", then have one article that describes all three types. Sounding balloons should have its own article (renamed from the present Weather balloon). Ceiling and pilot balloons could have separate articles or (maybe best) one article on both of them, since they are so similar. Federal Meteorological Handbook #3 has a lot of great info on pilot and sounding balloons, but doesn't seem to mention ceiling balloons. I haven't found anything on ceiling balloons except the stuff in the Kaymont catalog; at the same time, the Ceiling balloon article is the best of all the Wikipedia articles in terms of detailed coverage, great pictures, etc.

Also, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have anything on the hobby aspect of high-altitude balloons of various types. It seems as though that hobby is getting more widespread. Lou Sander (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more it seems that "pilot balloons" and "sounding\weather balloons" should be in the same article. Both types are used to measure the same thing. Wind speed and direction aloft although the sounding balloons can obtain more information with the attached radiosonde. The only reason that pilot balloons was not mentioned is because Canada dropped the program and I'd not heard about it. Thanks for the kind words about the ceiling balloon article and images. I was surprised to see just how much of that remained from the original. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Maybe combine those two into one article and reference Ceiling balloon as a somewhat related item. I'm guessing that the photos from Ceiling balloon also would apply to the Pilot balloons, and could be duplicated there (or at least some of them could). What say you? Lou Sander (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be best. I'm not sure about the pictures. I should check later and see what the balloons are, 30 g or less. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 14:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:DX100.png

Thanks for uploading File:DX100.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:DX100.png

Thanks for uploading File:DX100.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)