Personalmountains

Korean war

Hello Personalmountains, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I'm glad you've signed up as a regular editor. Your discussion comments regarding the Korean War are most interesting, and I am enjoying them! --S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy you do! I unfortunately get carried away quite easily. I have little to no experience with discussions on Wikipedia, I mostly edit typos. I'm trying to start getting a bit more involved. We'll see how this goes :) Personalmountains (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Request

regarding [1], could you at least add a source? You say that the statement is well sourced, but there's no references for the sentence.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The very next sentence has ref 10 which has "The Gitmo files are the fifth (and very nearly the final) cache of data that disaffected US soldier Bradley Manning is alleged to have turned over to the Wikileaks website more than a year ago." I thought putting a single reference for two sentences was fine, but I may be wrong. I'll find another. pm (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be OK, but in this particular case... a non-primary source would help quite a bit.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added cnet and reuters links. I'll also try to fix the "may be". Thanks for the heads up. pm (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lac-Mégantic derailment

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that the reports about the capacity of 113k litres per car seem to be true. I've found a close-up picture of one the rail cars here where you can see an inscription "CAPT 113800 L". De728631 (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I'm not sure what the gazette was smoking. Thanks for the picture! pm (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh. I guess they lost a couple of zeros as in "more than 100,000". And actually they're even right (if grossly understating): 113k > 1,000. ;) De728631 (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

CFB North Bay

Hello. I was in the middle of contacting you when we had a brief power failure.

I removed your notices from the article. In April 2011, 22 Wing/Canadian Forces Base North Bay took control over its Wikipedia article because, to that point, contributors and editors had comprised people who had no inkling about the base, in most cases had never even visited the base. The result of their work was a mishmash of mistakes and omissions that failed to provide accurate information, in any dimension, about the base and its history. On top of this, thinking that we were responsible, the base received numerous rebukes for the Wikipedia article. In short, the article had become an embarrassment in every context that required correction.

As the Wing Heritage Officer for the base (essentially a history/heritage public affairs officer) the Wikipedia article became my assignment. With one exception, all of the information on the Wikipedia article comes directly from base active files, base archives, and the files and archives of air force units that were, or are, posted on the base--in other words straight from the horse's mouth. The exception is outside sources such as newspaper articles, books and similar writings. In every case, a citation is given (currently 63 are listed), and a bibliography lists the books used as references (14 are named).

Regarding your observation about "original research", I am uncertain what you mean by this. (As opposed to unoriginal research?) In any event, the sources of information for the CFB North Bay article are stated above. The sources do not get any more accurate than this--the information in the Wikipedia article about the base comes from the base, with the one exception I mentioned.

With respect to "...this article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources", again I am afraid I am at a loss of what you mean. Once more, the sources for the Wikipedia article are the files and archives on the base, from the base and its units, and from cited newspaper articles, books and similar writings.

Lastly: "This article needs additional citations for verification ... Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." To reiterate, none of the material is unsourced. As for citations I have been diligent to ensure they are included, as exemplified by the 63 citations provided, and the 14 books listed in the bibliography.

We (myself and others on the air force base following the progress of the article) appreciate that you have shown interest in the CFB North Bay article. As per your User Page remarks, we accept that your inserted observations were made in good faith. Please rest assured that my remarks here are presented in good faith as well.

We wish you the best.

22WHERO (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have taken this case to the notice board. pm (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears you are missing some crucial information about how Wikipedia operates. I suggest you read the following articles, of which I quote a small part:

• Original research: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
• Verifiability: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".
• Primary sources: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• Independent sources: Any article on a topic is required to cite a reliable source independent of the topic itself, to warrant that an article on the topic can be written from a neutral point of view and not contain original research.
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups.
• Citations: By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research.

I recommend you read the actual articles to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. pm (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I will be responding to the complaint. Meantime:

Regarding "original research", yes, I understand the phrase, but was uncertain what you were referring to exactly because all of the material provided in the CFB North Bay article on my end comes from files, archives, books, newspaper articles, etc., all published sources (versus, say, someone's voiced opinion) and therefore all of it reliable. As indicated in the citations, with the exception of books and newspaper articles, all of the sources comprise (a) original base and base unit documents, and (b) historical Canadian government documents (e.g., Air Board Report, 1921) found at either the Library & Archives of Canada or Department of National Defence Directorate of History & Heritage. I.e., as far as sources go, this is the horse's mouth.

None of these sources are security classified, all are open to public scrutiny.

The key, fundamental problem, which contributed to the mess made by those who started and edited the CFB North Bay Wikipedia article until 2011, is two-fold: (a) there have been very few books published in the civilian world about Canada's post-Second World War air force, and (b) because of RCAF Station/CFB North Bay's critical front-line role in the defence of North America against nuclear attack, the base kept a low profile, thus is seldom mentioned in any of the published books. The same goes for magazine and newspaper articles, other than the local newspaper, the North Bay Nugget. Which means that the base's historical archives, etc., are the principal sources of data by default.

Ergo the people who started and edited the CFB North Bay Wikipedia article had very little information available in terms of books and the like--but (ironic to your argument about my contributions to the article) neither did they bother to check any sources, at the base or elsewhere. They manufactured their contributions from unsubstantiated opinions, assumptions and guesswork--yet we noted how no one involved in monitoring Wikipedia articles took them to task for their products. Which is why we stepped in to amend the situation.

All of the information I insert in the article has its foundation in a historical document, government record, newspaper article or something similar, that can also be reviewed by anyone in the public. To comply with Wikipedia rules, and for general, basic practicality, everything inserted has to have legitimate, trustworthy substantiation in writing.

Example: the CFB North Bay Wikipedia article states that the NORAD Underground Complex was designed to withstand a 4-megaton nuclear strike. While there are no public books on the subject, there is an 80-page engineering document in our historical archives, "Report on Hardening of SAGE, SCC, North Bay for A.D. Margison & Associates Ltd, Consulting Engineers, March 1960" by D.F. Coates, P.Eng, Ottawa, Canada, that details the engineering data and lays out the mathematical computations for the Underground Complex withstanding a nuclear strike. Formerly classified Secret, now anyone can review it.

Which brings us to your next three points of verifiability, primary sources and independent sources. After the fact, I did see what you were getting at regarding secondary or tertiary sources. Again, with the exception of books and newspaper articles (which I cite in the article, wherever used), all of the sources I use comprise original base and base unit documents, and historical Canadian government documents. It doesn't get any more verifiable than this (the horse's mouth), and these are the very documents that all secondary, tertiary and independent sources must consult in their research of a related topic. You want to write a book or op-ed piece or magazine article about some aspect of CFB North Bay or the air force in North Bay, these are the documents you have to review, either held by the base, the Library & Archives of Canada or DND Directorate of History & Heritage.

Regarding COI, it does not apply for three reasons. First, who else is best suited to contribute to an article about CFB North Bay than the Wing Heritage Office of that very base, which holds the archives, files, etc.? That said, we hold no bones about others contributing to the article and making amendments, as long as their contributions and amendments can be substantiated. Second, as stated, this work has been carried out under stringent guidelines that facts only are inserted, no op-ed allowed, both to meet Wikipedia rules and the instructions of the base commander. In essence this is the history of the base and what the base is all about, period, no embellishment. Third, our base or myself gains nothing by attempting to promote either its interest or my interest.

As for citations: as I stated, I have been fastidious about providing citations, and all items cited are reputable books and newspapers, or North Bay base, base unit, or Canadian government documents. And all of these are accessible to the public.

I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and I have adhered to them. Everything I have contributed to the article can be substantiated.

If you wish to contact me outside of Wikipedia, for any reason, I can be reached at:

Captain Doug Newman 22 Wing Heritage Officer Canadian Forces Base North Bay Hornell Heights, Ontario Canada P0H 1P0 (705) 494-6011 ext. 2783 Raymond.Newman@forces.gc.ca

22WHERO (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Nazi and separatist statement!

This statement is out of line! To compare the Quebec government to Nazi Germany is ridiculous, hateful, and really racist! The Quebec people, as first Canadians, readily accepted the first Nations and did not take away their land and kill them like the English did. The first Jews in Canada were in Montreal, and they were and still are accepted as a part of Quebec society. I dislike your comment. It makes me angry! The first concentration camps were built by the English in South Africa against the Boers. The Anglo-Saxons came from Northern Germany, so you have much in common with the Nazis. Takes one to know one! The conductor's name is Tom Harding, so shut up in respect for all the people that died in Lac Megantic! It was the British that renamed the Province of Canada, taken from France, Province of Quebec. Also read the Quebec Act (1774), the British parliament talks about Canadiens, this 100 years before Confederation. It is your ignorance with Canadian history that is the root of your racist statements. You should read about this too, your own people kicked out of USA, Expulsion of the Loyalists. Now who are the Nazis? It was also these same people that divided the Province of Quebec into Upper Canada and Lower Canada. So who were the first separatists--Captain Thor (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not comparing the Québec Government with Nazi Germany. The word Nazis in my comment was linking to Godwin's Law, not Nazism. I was trying to point out that mentioning separatism was a sure way to inflame the discussion and render it useless. As a French Canadian (hockey fan and all), I understand how sensitive it is.

Before personally attacking someone, make sure you really understand what was said. pm (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)