Thanks. I've just been trying to clear up a ton of law red links. Mmmbeer 03:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much. i appreciate the help with Gene Kranz. i'm new to the proper format on wikipedia, so i did my best. the thing about kranz is that, since he is such a verbally astute man, who is about 'no-nonsense clarity', nobody has written much on him - he's done all the very clear and factual speaking already on his own. it makes it difficult to write about him without quoting him much, because 1. nobody else has written about him much and 2. everything about the program was basically stated by him and only a few other astronauts....so all i could do is quote, as little as possible. anything you can think of is welcomed. thanks!! <unsigned comment by User:Gump at 21:55, 31 July 2005>

I responded at User talk:Gump#About NPOV and encyclopedic tone on Gene Kranz.

There's like 4 folks willing to help (me counted) so no problem. :-) Kim Bruning 12:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has an entry at the Star Wars databanks, which is the official Star Wars site. Thats enough for me to consider it canon.--Kross 18:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

(I replied at User_talk:Kross#TIE.2Frc_Vanguard-_borderline_fancruft.)

I'm not sure if you were aware, but we recently had a survey at the aircraft wikiproject that discussed, among other things, the style we should use for specifications. By a small margin, the (current standard) inline list format came out ahead, rather than the blue infobox.

As you're working on FAC for the Catalina, and since you didn't vote there, I was curious - would you have a problem switching the article over to the inline format? I personally think articles look better with the newer layout, especially ones with a lot of photos. If I hadn't spotted your involvement, I would have simply swapped it over, but now I'd like let you know and perhaps participate in the project's discussion if you dislike the format. Anyway, glad to find someone else loves the cat as much as I do! Have a good one. -eric ✈ 19:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow! WikiProject Aircraft? Sign me up ;). Eric, I will definitely switch the Catalina specs to the new preferred format. Anything you can do to help me get the Cat article to FAC would be fantastic, and I'll definitely be participating in future WikiProj A/C endevours. Nice to make your acquaintance. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 20:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hey, anything I can do to help! Glad you joined up with the project, it's really expanded since I joined a year or so ago. :) I just created a basic PB2Y Coronado and stubbed off the PB4Y Privateer, so the PBY's got a little company now. I'm not sure what the PB3Y was other than a concept 4-engine boat, but I'm going to keep poking around. Anyway, the Catalina's looking quite good! I just added a BuAir 3-view to the specs section, which is something I've been doing to other aircraft as I find PD 3-views lying around. If you come up with your question, just drop me a line. -eric ✈ 04:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With the specs, go ahead and leave in the fields you don't have - and we're currently leaning towards including cruise speed (I do anyway, as it stands). By leaving the fields blank, it highlights the information that's not there (although it does give a bit of an unfinished impression to readers, but that can't quite be helped) much like red wikilinks do in articles.

So... put 'em both in, so if someone winds up finding climb rate, we can get that in as well. For example, I have a feeling it's in Navy manuals of the time. There's actually a dedicated aviation library (:D) at the new Seattle Public Library that I might give a shot this week. Anyway, one thing I wanted to mention about the PBY - there's a big chunk of units which used it, but it's almost entirely incomplete and features only RAF units. We should probably consider moving it to a subpage, despite their taboo nature, or cut it altogether. Very few of our top-notch articles include it, including Convair B-36, a previous Featured Article. -eric ✈ 04:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I likewise don't think the squadron list is worth having, but I didn't want to act unilaterally against the wishes of GraemeLeggett without achieving a concensus first. I'm still going to wait until he comes back online before I remove them, because it would be quite rude to hop online and find myself reverted again were I in his shoes. I'm sure you'll find the rate of climb in the technical manuals, like you said (if I don't find them first :) ).

I've put up a pre-FAC nomination checklist on PBY Catalina's talk page, please add to it as you see fit. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Scientologist and I appreciate your offering to ensure the articles are NPOV. However, I would like to point out that at that almost 1/2 or more of the members of this project have an anti-Scientology POV. Also, interesting to note is that usually when a Scientologist attempts to edit a Scientology-related article, a "cabal" of anti-Scientology POV contributors show up and destroy any sense of consensus. I think this project should not have any pro or anti Scientology POV's at all. Only contributors who are 100% neutral should be on this project. David Gerard (who I am assuming is the project leader) is definitely anti-Scn and I can prove it if he tries to deny it. --AI 00:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you are interested in working with the project; we can only benefit from having some Scientologists on board to help us out. Your allegation about David Gerard (whom I respect) raises an interesting point. I'm willing to accept as a given for the sake of argument that David Gerard is anti-CoS, as you say. But if you are a member of the CoS, doesn't that make you by default pro-Scientology? If the goal of the project is to make neutral POV articles, then by your logic neither of you can participate.

What we should do is work together as best we can, recognizing others' (and our own) tendencies and biases, and work to make the Wikipedia's collection of CoS articles as informative and neutral as we can. Just because David is anti-CoS (and this has not been proven to me yet) and you are pro-CoS doesn't mean that you can't both set aside your biases to help write neutral articles.

Thanks for being interested enough to write to me about it; I do understand your concern and I promise to do my best to maintain NPOV, just as I do with any other articles on Wikipedia. --Fernando Rizo T/C 00:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking to participate. --AI 00:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AI. I sympathize with your concerns, but I feel they may be unfounded. I've left a full reply on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You feel they may be unfounded.. Sounds a bit subjective. If one takes an objective look at the histories of the Scientology articles you can see plenty of evidence which support my claims. --AI 00:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David represented himself as the operator of www.xenu.netizen.com.au according to The Salt Lake Tribune. Reference: With LDS Book on Net, Lawsuit Might Be Moot The Salt Lake Tribune, by Sheila R. McCann, Saturday, October 30, 1999. It is easy to prove that David Gerard criticizes Scientology. Do a google search of the usenet for his name and you will see more. --AI 00:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, and I understand your fears. Wikipedia is bigger than one person, and definitely bigger than one person's POV. We'll all work together to ensure NPOV articles. --Fernando Rizo T/C 01:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a critic of Scientology, what passes for an expert in such a regard. See http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/ - this is in no way a secret. I also state it on WP:SCN. However, NPOV does not require Sympathetic Point Of View. And given AI's insistence on cut'n'pasting CoS POV (he's a long-term CoS staffer), I find it eyebrow-raising that he claims that me merely being a critic means I shouldn't be editing in the area - David Gerard 08:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fernando! Any work I did on that Republic article has been reverted by a previous editor. I'm not too willing to get into a pissing match over bad grammer. I'd rather get involved with the Aircraft project you were discussing in an earlier post. Although I'm not a pilot, I have logged thousands of simulation hours using mostly esoteric vehicles. I'm partial to the DeHavilland "Comet", a plane that had a bad habit of crashing. Anyways, some direction re:Republic would be appreciated. See you 'round! Hamster Sandwich 14:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i have found the source i was looking for ,for the article on marine team 6

the vital guide to special forces by george forty

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1840372060/qid%3D1123004748/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-7531850-0943238

heres the link to borders books if you're interested in buying the book now please recind the deletion for marine team 6

thank you

JH