This is the correct C J Snare link on Facebook.(not Cj Snare as listed)https://www.facebook.com/cjsnaremusic?mibextid=LQQJ4d— Precedingunsigned comment added by2601:248:682:8FD0:F42F:62E7:F375:628 (talk)07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

facebook link has nothing to do with me. "I didn't do it."AMCKen (talk)18:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, AMCKen! However, your edithere was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to removespam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule photobucket\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia'sexternal links guidelines for more information, and consult mylist of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, seemy FAQ page. Thanks!Shadowbot03:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingImage:Collectors2.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, it is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BJBot (talk)23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the pageWoking on Wikipedia. Your test worked,reverted or removed. Please usethe sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at thewelcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --SuzanneKn (talk)19:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Reach for the Top website (here:[1]) gives the 1971-72 champions as O'Leary, not Archbishop O'Leary. We should stay consistent with them. --Patar knight -^chat/_{contributions}19:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the name of the school is Archbishop... I looked it up in the phone book before making the change. : )

Hi I am looking for any photo of Kaye Don which can be used on the article - any ideas where we could find one?Tony (talk)20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have none. Sorry.

Inthis diff andthis diff you recently edited the displacements for theWright R-540 andWright R-790. At the risk of sounding excessively picky, I have two criticisms:

• You didn't provide references for the new displacement values, which now differ from those in the ones I used.
• If the new displacements are accurate, they still seem overly precise to me. Is it really necessary to give an engine's displacement to 5significant figures? I would think that manufacturing discrepancies or differences in wear might overwhelm that.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk)08:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but sometimes it makes a difference. In the case of the R-790, it shows that the engine is really an R-785 by the usual standards. The new numbers are based on the bore and stroke as shown in the article. : )

Ken

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. I had expected you to reply on my talk page and didn't think to check yours until much later. Also I've been busy with various non-Wikipedia issues.

I see now that you calculated the displacement values. If you include calculated figures in a set of specifications which are listed as coming from a particular reference, you really should indicate which figures come from calculations instead of the reference.

However, there is a more serious problem. Since you are calculating displacements from bore and stroke values which only have two significant figures, your calculated values should have the same number of significant figures. If the bore or stroke measurement is off by as little as 0.01 inches, the calculated displacement will be off by several cubic inches, so you can't achieve more accuracy than that. (Seesignificance arithmetic for more on this.)

Also, if the specification reference includes a displacement value, we should trust that value unless we have very good reason to doubt it (such as if it is obviously impossible). The reference's displacement may well have been measured directly, such as by observing how much fluid is displaced in one engine cycle, and may thus be more accurate than a value calculated from the bore and stroke.

For these reasons, I have reverted your specification edits. Sorry about this; I hope it doesn't bother you.

(By the way,the standard Army/Navy engine designation system supposedly rounded the displacementup to the next higher multiple of 5, so even if the R-790's displacement was only 787 cubic inches, it would still be called an R-790.)

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk)08:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking 'nearer' 5 was the standard, but perhaps they prefer to round up rather than down. It's good for bragging rights.I'm still not sure how to reply to 'talk', among other things I still don't know how to do - like uploading pictures. : )

Hello,I tried hunting down a source on the relationship between the SpaceX Merlin and Kestrel engines and theRolls-Royce Merlin andRolls-Royce Kestrel, but I couldn't find anything. Do you have a source handy?Djd sd (talk)04:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No connection other than the names being the same. : )

In that case I think it should be removed. Since there is no source, we can only speculate about the inspiration behind the naming.Djd sd (talk)—Precedingundated comment was added at04:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi AMCKen - just echoing the excellent advice given by Colin Douglas Howell above; please do not introducefalse precision into engine specifications by increasing the number ofsignificant figures stated. I have just removed quite a few such recent edits by you. It's also important forVerifiability that we do not state a greaterprecision than what is provided in our sources.

Furthermore, even if our sources sometimes may give a figure to a very high precision, please keep in mind that we're writingan encyclopedia here, not a motor manual, and tolerances of 1/10000 of an inch are not only unnecessary, but decrease comprehensibility through their increased visual clutter. --Rlandmann (talk)22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely converting fractions of inches, i.e. 7/16", to decimal, .4375, instead of rounding up or down and getting _false_ results. Using .44 or .4 is not accurate and isn't an encyclopedia supposed to be accurate?

You're some sort of administrator are you that you change other peoples work?

thanks

AMCKen (talk)06:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

But you see, the problem is that 7/16" itself has roundingbuilt into it - it's a value with a degree of certainty expressed to a single significant figure, namely, 1/16". In other words, (as far as we know) it's a figure that's been measured on a scale calibrated in sixteenths of an inch and we have no way of knowing if the "real" value is really closer to 27/64" or 29/64"; all we really know is that some value greater than 13/32" and less than 15/32" is meant. To express the same measurement with greater precision, it would have to be measured in 32nds or 64ths of an inch, or (more probably) inthou. From the point of view ofprecision, expressing a value as 7/16" isnot the same as expressing it as 14/32", even ifnumerically the value of the fractions is the same.

When converting a fraction to a decimal (or vice versa), if the number ofsignificant figures increases, it introduces a particular type of error, calledfalse precision. To stick with our example, reporting a fractional value as .4375 is to state that it has been measured on an instrument precise to 1/1000 mm. That's fine, if the original measurement had been given in fractions of a thou, or (improbably!) as 7168/16384". But it wasn't.

In science and engineering,accuracy and precision are two very different things. When we're giving a piece of data in an article, we have no way of knowing howaccurate it was; we rely on reliable sources and trust that the figure given as 7/16" wasn't really 6/16" or 8/16". However, we can (usually) readily see the degree ofprecision with which the figure was given, and if it was given to aprecision of one significant figure, then we shouldn't distort this when we convert it to a different system of measurement.

I hope this helps clarify the problem somewhat; if not, please let me know and I'll see if I can point you to some further reading on the subject. --Rlandmann (talk)12:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that if the aeroengine designer asked for 57⁄16" cylinders from the machine shop he'd get 57⁄16" cylinders. So 5.4375 x 25.4 = 138.1125mm. I'd probably put in only 138.1. I could put in the fractions rather than the decimals.AMCKen (talk)19:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

The difference is that an engineer providing a specification to the machine shop will also provide tolerances for its functional dimensions (smaller tolerances = more effort to produce = more cost). The secondary sources that provide the data for Wikipedia articles do not generally contain these tolerances, they have been stripped of their tolerances and therefore already express rounded off numbers. When converting, we need to express the same degree of "rounded offness" as the figures in our source.

So, since 5 7/16" contains twosignificant figures, our SI conversion of it must also contain two significant figures; ie, 140 mm. Anything beyond that is a distortion of what was originally presented in the source, and by the time we get to 138.1 (four significant figures) the distortion is large.

Put another way, introducing levels of precision that are not in the original source is like randomly changing a sentence that says "a crowd of 3,000 gathered for the event" (one significant figure) and making it say "a crowd of 2,936 gathered for the event" (four significant figures) when the original source said "3,000". The distortion should be obvious there; it becomes less obvious when a unit conversion has taken place, but it's the samefalse precision error. --Rlandmann (talk)19:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ken, I have been asked byRlandmann if I could put another perspective on this problem. If we can take theNapier Cub article as an example. I recently created this article after taking much time to research the subject, source and tag a non-free image etc. before placing it in themain namespace for editors to expand and correct as required. There has been only one edit apart from my own, this was your edit to 'correct' theengine displacement figure and add aBMEP figure clearly calculated by yourself (which in my opinion isoriginal research). To highlight the differences, you have altered the displacement by 0.6 cu in and 0.01 Litres. These are very small 'corrections' but more importantly they are not what is stated in the very comprehensive reference source which is:

• Lumsden, Alec.British Piston Engines and their Aircraft. Marlborough, Wiltshire: Airlife Publishing, 2003.ISBN 1-85310-294-6.

This was quite an expensive book, one of two that I recently bought specifically for improving Wikipedia engine articles, Mr Lumsden takes great care (several pages) to state where he obtained the specification sources, where possible he has used manufacturers drawings for instance. In the case of the Napier Cub there are no metric conversions provided, I added them as allowed underMOS:CONVERSIONS and rounded them in accordance with the guidelines there, specifically 'Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value (e.g. writethe Moon is approximately 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, notthe moon is approximately 380,000 kilometres (236,121 mi) from Earth)'. I should therefore have given the metric displacement as 60 Litres (I actually wrote 60.32).

If you want to add BMEP figures as a separate parameter to engine articles you could discuss it atWT:AIR, theaircraft article content talk page or thePistonspecs template talk page (the last containing the project advice for completing the piston engine specification fields).

I am not unknowledgeable in the field of aircraft piston engines, I attended a specialist five week course (three weeks of theory, two weeks practical) at the UKLycoming agent and overhaul facility and then spent the next four years maintaining 0-360 and 0-540 engines. I currently maintain thede Havilland Gipsy Major engine fitted to our group ownedTiger Moth. Lycoming standard practise is to supply a matched cylinder and piston kit because of the engineering tolerances involved, an engine could often be running two rebored cylinders opposite each other, both factors which will affect the manufacturer's displacement figures from the 'nominal' given in their own specifications.

To summarise, the guidelines of the project and general consensus of what editors accept as a 'standard' way of writing specification sections have been highlighted. From a personal viewpoint you could imagine that I could be dis-inclined to write any more engine or aircraft articles (or add specifications to those articles without) if they are subsequently edited to a version that does not agree with the supplied reference. I note that there are many other engine articles that you have altered in a similar manner. Yours respectfullyNimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)22:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rlandmann mentions significant figures should carry through so your Cub should have 1 decimal place in the displacement, right? If displacement is calculated from fractions, the whole value of the fraction should be used in the calculation, like in my 57⁄16 sample, not some rounded number. I've seen quite a few where the decimal value does not reflect the true fraction and have tried to fix them. Once a rounded number enters the 'system' many others will copy it - like saying the measurement is 5.44 instead of the true value of 5.4375 or 57⁄16. 5.44" is NOT 57⁄16". Any engine with non-stock cylinders will of course have a different displacement but we're supposedly writing about factory new engines. Sorry for the trouble but I am trying to make the articles accurate.

The formula I used for BMEP comes via L. J. K. Setright using bore, stroke, cylinders, hp, and rpm.

AMCKen (talk)00:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

Significant figures include digits both to the rightand the left of the decimal point; this isnot the same as simpletruncation to a certain number of decimal places (as you suggest above). The number of decimal places is (in itself) irrelevant - the entire measurement must be considered.

And again,accuracy and precision are two different things. Remember that 5 7/8" is already a number with an implicit "roundedness"; to express it as 5.4 " preserves exactly the same degree of precision (and indeed accuracy) that is present in the original value. To express it as 5.44 ", or worse - as 5.4375 " - introduces a degree of precision that simply isn't there in the original source; you are effectively "making something up". If you want to provide the figure as 5.44 ", you would need to find (and cite) a reference where the value is given as 5 14/16".

I know that this may appear counter-intuitive. Wikipedia's own articles on these subjects (linked at various points above by all three of your fellow editors who have tried to explain this issue) are actually quite good; have you read them? If youhave and still don't understand the problem with what you've been doing (and your continued confusion between accuracy and precision suggests that you may not have "got" the concept yet), then all you need to do is ask; there are plenty of resources out there on the web, and indeed, I'm sure, your local public library. Any decent high-school or undergraduate level textbook on any of the physical sciences or engineering will have a section on this, probably with worked examples. --Rlandmann (talk)00:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cub, not 'my' Cub. Please seeWP:OWN. No fractions were used in the original Imperial displacement, you introduced the partial inch to the figures. I am afraid you are simply not acknowledging that your edits are causing a problem even after the relevant long established guidelines have been provided several times.Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)05:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The number of decimal places is (in itself) irrelevant" - So 1.1 is the same as 1.0?

"Remember that 5 7/8" is already a number with an implicit "roundedness"; to express it as 5.4 " preserves exactly the same degree of precision (and indeed accuracy) that is present in the original value." 5 7/8" ? Sample 57⁄16 as 5.4" is an error of about 0.7%. Is that accurate or precise?

"you are effectively "making something up"."I'm NOT "making" anything up. 57⁄16 is _NOT_ rounding, it's the actual number. 5.4 or even 5.44 is rounding 57⁄16 and that's "making" things up. I wouldn't put 5.44 where 57⁄16 is the measurement so "If you want to provide the figure as 5.44 ", you would need to find (and cite) a reference where the value is given as 5 14/16(sic)"." doesn't apply. Somebody else has put in the 5.44 and I'm fixing it.

"No fractions were used in the original Imperial displacement, you introduced the partial inch to the figures." Maybe some fellow in the marketing department had already rounded 57⁄16 to 5.44 'cause decimals looked more flash than fractions, and everyone else after thought so too.

AMCKen (talk)08:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

1.1 is not the same as 1.0, but neither is 1.0 the same as 1. The point here is that if a measurement says simply 1 (1 significant figure) we don't know whether 1.1 or 1.0 (2 significant figures) is the true value (or 0.8 or 1.2 for that matter); we can only include the same level of precision as what's in the original source. If the source says 1, we can't say 1.0, 1.00, or 1.000.

We don't know what (if any) error there is between 5 7/16" and 5.4" because we don't know the tolerance that the fractional measurement is expressed to. In order to support your claim that there is a 0.7% error, your source would need to show that the original value was expressed with atolerance equal to or better than a tenth of an inch. Without that information, you are simply plucking a tolerance out of the air - which is what I meant earlier by "making something up".

A value like 5 7/16" doesn't tell the whole story from a scientific or engineering point of view - its "roundedness" comes from thefact that we only know the value to within 1/16". If it were expressed as 5 14/32" (or had a tolerance figure provided with it), we would be able to express the conversion with greater precision.

It's not up to you to "fix" what's provided in cited sources - that'sOriginal Research. If you have a source which expresses the values to greater tolerances, then go ahead and cite the source.

I'm sorry to bring out the "stick", but since you show no signs of having taken on board any of the key concepts involved here, if you continue to ignore the policies set out inMOS:CONVERSIONS andWP:OR, I will pursueformal dispute resolution over the matter. --Rlandmann (talk)11:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"tolerance equal to or better than a tenth of an inch." "fact that we only know the value to within 1/16"" So 1/16 = .06, not .0625 (1 divided by 16), whether it is inches or any other number?? Help me out here - thanksAMCKen (talk)04:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're asking, but I'll have another go.

As a pure number, 1/16 = 0.0625. However, if a source provides a measurement as 1/16" and you want (for whatever reason) to present it in the article in decimal inches, then it introduces false precision to express it as anything more precise than 0.1" (or 0.06" at the outside). Which is why best practice would be not to convert fractional inches to decimal inches. However, to render this in mm, wehave to use decimals, so: 0.0625 × 25.4 = 1.5875 mm.

But now we have a problem! Can you see that our result, expressed right down to 0.0005 of a millimetre (half amicron!), is a very, very fine measurement, when (comparatively anyway) the 1/16" we started with is quite a rough measurement? We can read sixteenths of an inch on a ruler; reading 0.0005 mm is beyond the reach of a micrometer.

So, to fix this discrepancy, the final step in our conversion is now to round the final result to 2 mm (or, at the outside, 1.6 mm), which is a measurement as "coarse" as 1/16 of an inch is. (We can read 2 mm just as easily on a ruler as we can read 1/16").

In a similar way, 1/16" is a coarse value, whereas 63 thou is a very precise value, and 0.0625" is even more precise still.

Does that make more sense? (And is it what you were asking for?) --Rlandmann (talk)05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, on thePratt & Whitney R-2000, using the 5.75 x 5.5 bore and stroke, the math says 1,999.481 cuin so shouldn't the displacement be 1,999 cuin and not 2,000?

Great! A worked example! :)

We're starting with two values: 5.75" (three significant figures) and 5.5" (two significant figures). In cases like these where the data is describing the one item and has come from the same source, we can probably assume that both values have the same degree of precision, so we'll assume a third significant figure and treat 5.5" as if it were 5.50".

We also need a suitable value for π. Constants have an infinite number of significant figures; but I'll just use what my calculator has built in: 3.141592653589793238

So the displacement of each cylinder is:

3.141592653589793238 × (5.75"/2)^2 × 5.50" = 142.8197472753047411 cu in, and for the whole 14-cylinder engine is 1999.476461854266375 cu in. (14 is a pure number, and therefore has an infinite number of significant digits).

However, our answer now claims to be precise to 0.000000000000005 cu in! How do we know what to round it to?

Just like a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, a calculated value can only be as precise as theleast precise figure that was fed into it. Therefore, we need to round 1999.476461854266375 to three significant figures, since the numbers that we started with were also only precise to three significant figures. So, reading from left to right, "1" is a significant figure, as is the first "9", and the second "9" - but we're now up to three significant figures, meaning that we now have to round off the fourth digit. But this is also a "9", and when we round it, it causes the digits to the left of it to round up as well, giving us a final value of 2,000 cu in, correct to three significant figures.

Note that if we were being really strict, we'd have had to confine ourselves to onlytwo significant figures, since, strictly speaking we onlyassumed a third significant figure for 5.5 right at the beginning. In this particular case, though, it doesn't make any difference, since the result would have been the same if we'd started rounding at the third digit instead of the fourth.

Your suggested solution of 1,999 cu in could only be supported if we started with values for the stroke and bore that had four significant figures in them, ie: if the source had given us 5.750" and 5.500". --Rlandmann (talk)06:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I've just undone your overcorrection to thePratt & Whitney R-1690 for the same reason: the specifications started out withthree significant figures for bore and stroke; therefore the final displacement can also only havethree significant figures. I'm happy to step it through for you as I did above for the R-2000 if this doesn't yet make sense to you. --Rlandmann (talk)04:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could explain where you guys are coming from. When I was in high school we used significant _DECIMALS_. 5.75 and 5.5 would use one decimal place in the answer as 5.5 has only one decimal. Worked for me for almost 40 years.

"(14 is a pure number, and therefore has an infinite number of significant digits)" So saying the engine has 14.0 cylinders is different significantly than saying 14 + infinite decimals cylinders? (Not that one actually would say 14.0 cylinders).

"1999.476461854266375 cu in. (14 is a pure number, and therefore has an infinite number of significant digits).

However, our answer now claims to be precise to 0.000000000000005 cu in! How do we know what to round it to?"

Well, it's LESS than 1999.5 so why not 1999? You're rounding up MORE than 1/2 unit. (Your 'π' used more decimals than mine.)

TA

AMCKen (talk)06:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

I wasn't in your class, so I can't vouch for what you were taught, but with respect, I suspect that either your teacher had it wrong (or was simplifying things) forty years ago, or you're recalling it incorrectly. Significance arithmetic hasn't changed over the years. Here's a quote fromThe Theory of Measurements by Albert de Forest Palmer, published in 1912:

The number of decimal places was, in and of itself, irrelevant in 1912 and remains so in 2008. Thetotal number of non-placeholder digits to the leftand right of the decimal point must be considered.

Why don't we round 1999.4 to 1999 in this case? Because 1999.4 hasfive significant figures, 1999 hasfour significant figures, and the values we started with havethree significant figures. So, starting from the left, the "1" is significant, the first "9" is significant", and the second "9" is significant. We're up to our full quota of three significant figures now, so the third "9" isnot significant and is only used for rounding off the significant figures to the left of it. If the computed value had been between 1990 and 1994, we would round to 1990. If it had been between 1995 and 1999, we would round to 2000. Obviously, the latter is the case.

However, if we had started with figures given in thou thatwere accurate to four places (ie, the source had given us 5.750 and 5.550 – note four significant figures each) the result would be different. We would keep the third "9" as significant and now look to the next digit ("4") for rounding. So, if we'd started with values this precise, then computed values between 1999.0 and 1999.4 would round to 1999, and values from 1999.5 and 1999.9 would round to 2000 (or 2000.0 if you wanted to make it explicit that the final zero to the left of the decimal point was significant and not just a placeholder). So yes, under these conditions, 1999.4 would indeed round to 1999.

The point about "14" being a pure number and having an infinite number of significant digits is this: at first glance, "14" appears to have only two significant figures, which would mean that in our calculation of the total displacement of the R-2000, we could only consider two significant figures in our result (not that it would have made a difference in this particular case with all those "9"s...).However when we stop to think about what the "14" is actually referring to, this is clearly nonsense. "14" is a pure (dimensionless) number because an engine can't have 13.999 or 14.001 cylinders. Therefore, we can treat 14 as 14.0 or 14.000 or 14.00000000000000 and simply ignore it when working out the number of significant figures that our answer is allowed to have.

Do you need me to walk through the R-1690? If so, it's no problem. --Rlandmann (talk)08:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a different subject; I noticed you addedthis material to theShort Sunderland article but didn't provide a reference for it. Claims such as something or someone being "the first" to do something really need to beverifiable. Could you please add the source of this information to the article? --Rlandmann (talk)12:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would I put

http://books.google.ca/books?id=W0WFe7WZlcwC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=%22G-AGJM%22&source=bl&ots=e712pa4OLJ&sig=BjUfGE1OSzxTDfathCRoOCzSEjI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

in?AMCKen (talk)08:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

Take a look: it's a two-step process. First, a "ref" tag goes directly after the material you've contributed, usually (as in this case) containing the author's surname, the year of publication, and the page number. Second, in the "References" (or, in this case, "Bibliography") section, we put the full bibliographic details of the work it came from, including title, publisher, and place of publication. --Rlandmann (talk)11:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onTau Ceti (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under thecriteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Pleasesee the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specificnotability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding{{hangon}} tothe top ofthe page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note onthe talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged forspeedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contactone of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.digitalmischief (talk)07:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure as heck didn't give me much time to reply before deleting it!! Well known band at the time, released records, had airplay, etc. I've seen other band entries with less.Send a copy to me and I'll see what I can do.AMCKen (talk)06:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

Articles about bands, corporations and individuals that appear to make no claim about the significance about their subjects can (and often are) deleted on sight – there's no waiting period required for this.

I've copied the text of the articleto your sandbox, where you can continue working on it and hopefully find somereliable third-party sources to demonstrate that they were notable.

Hope this helps! --Rlandmann (talk)10:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onTau Ceti (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under thecriteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Pleasesee the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specificnotability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding{{hangon}} tothe top ofthe page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note onthe talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged forspeedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contactone of these admins to request that theyuserfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.Spacevezon (talk)18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ken, can I respectfully ask you once again to stop changing clearly cited information as in here[2] and here[3]. Can I also point you to the policyWikipedia:Verifiability, particularly the first paragraph which in essence is saying even if you believe it is wrong thereliable source (in both cases Alec Lumsden's book) is the information to use. One edit changed the capacity figure, the other changed decimals to fractions which is not how it is given in the reference besides being a completely pointless exercise. You simply don't seem to appreciate the extra unnecessary work that you are causing for myself and other editors. Regards.Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)12:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumsden is not the be-all end-all some people think he is. I've seen bigger errors than this in his 'citations'. People should not take his word as final. Is it not the idea here to give accurate information? Errors from bad data shouldn't be left for the world to see, should they? ThanksAMCKen (talk)03:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

You should therefore challenge the policy atWikipedia:Verifiability, if you have a reliable source with more 'accurate' figures then please feel free to add them, citing your source at the same time. I would regard an alleged 'error' of one cubic inch in 1500 as extremely minor, bearing in mind that this a general encyclopedia. RegardsNimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)09:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My source is usually a calculator. Using the bore, stroke, and number of cylinders it is easy math. Should I cite the make and model? : )

Giving 1501 instead of 1500 (which engine was this?) doesn't take up any more disk space and is more accurate - why shouldn't we use it? thanks againAMCKen (talk)05:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you toreview other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing atwo-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are notautoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to onlya small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located atSpecial:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obviousvandalism orBLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (seeWikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be foundhere.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.Courcelles (talk)02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am flattered.AMCKen (talk)19:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been invited to joinWikiProject Darts. We are dedicated to improving and expandingdarts-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in darts and/or your edits to Darts-related articles. If you would like to join, please clickhere, and add your name to the bottom of the list of project members. Mr.Kennedy1talkguestbook20:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I invite you to finish the dispute for the importance ratings on darts articles.

Click here to see discussion.

Delivered byMessageDeliveryBot on behalf ofWikiProject Darts at16:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Dear AMCKen, can I please respectfully ask you once again to stop makingself-derived changes to clearly cited aero engine specification figures. This problem has previously been explained to you at great length by myself, another editor and an administrator, the advice is still visible above on this talk page. The mainpolicy that you are apparently ignoring isWikipedia:Verifiability, please note the first line of that policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia isverifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Please also note theaircraft project guideline for completing aero engine specification sections given atWikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content#Engine specifications, particularly bullet point three:

Avoidfalse precision. Where the specifications are cited by areliable source the figures and conversions may differ from that obtained with a calculator or conversion programme, perWikipedia:Verifiability they should be left uncorrected.

I now consider your recent edits to aero engine specification sections asdisruptive editing as you are apparently continuing to ignore previous advice, it is causing me a lot of unnecessary work restoring the affected articles back to a verifiable version (which includes re-checking that the figures are exactly as given in the source in case of transcription error). I note your queries on article talk pages, in all cases I have checked the figures against the source and have confirmed that they are as as stated in the articles. If any errors exist it is not caused by my or any other editor's inputs but is in the cited source. Thank you.Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)13:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After having come across some of your recent engine edits I was just coming here to add a warning on replacing reliable sources with your own calculations, but I see another editor has beat me to it. Replacing reliable sources with your ownoriginal research is not permitted on Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is built entirely on the policy ofverifiability, not on "my pocket calculator is better than your pocket calculator". If you think an engine spec is incorrect then find a better reliable ref to back up your changes. Going around replacing data from such sources as the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheets, which is officially accepted engineering documentation isdisruptive editing as it takes a lot of manpower to track this problems down and fix them again. Please stop doing this. -Ahunt (talk)13:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also putting info in the discussion page where the source (Lumsden - again) is in error. Does no one have any more accurate figures than him? Surely someone somewhere must have as his are apparently wrong. For instance -Armstrong Siddeley Deerhound. If the engines were built in 16ths of an inch, and someone converts to decimal and then rounds down to 2 or 1 decimals places, errors are compounded. Many internet sites are of no use as they only copy the entries in wikipedia.AMCKen (talk)20:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not relevant to this discussion which only concerns your editing behaviour, not alleged errors in sources. Do you agree to cease making changes to cited information against wikipedia policy as noted above (by four individual editors now) or do we need to go to the community for a resolution?Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)20:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia'sno original research policy by adding your personal analysis orsynthesis into articles, as you did atPackard DR-980, you may beblocked from editing. Please stop adding unreferenced calculations to engine articles as per the many messages on this talk page.MilborneOne (talk)21:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if anyone publishes whatever figures they want, it is considered _gospel_ even if the math doesn't 'add up'? This would allow typos and other errors to be considered as 'correct' until someone publishes other figures. Unfortunately Lumsden has more than a few errors in his book and it should not be called the 'be-all end-all' for figures such as these. I am not synthesizing anything nor making a personal analysis. Look at the entries for theRolls-Royce Merlin and thePackard V-1650. Which figures are the correct ones? Math says 1647/27 isn't quite right - 1649 is closer but that is 27.02 litres, not 27.04. An encyclopedia is supposed to dispense knowledge, not promulgate errors. Sorry if I am rambling on but it is late in the day.... Please reply.AMCKen (talk)07:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reply is that you simply can not continue to do what you are doing, the relevant policies have been highlighted quite clearly for you (now by three editors and two administrators). You are not acknowledging that you are causing problems. If you continue to make similar edits then aWikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct case will have to be opened, I would rather not have to do that.Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)11:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you guys are OK with dispensing erroneous information to the world?AMCKen (talk)05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies entirely onverifiability, not onThe Truth. -Ahunt (talk)07:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay experts, what about thePackard 1A-2500? The source (which has errors of multiple tens of cuin) says 2540 cuin. The sign in the photo attached to the article says just 2500. Math says 2490 (rounded to the nearest whole cuin).AMCKen (talk)00:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what your original research shows, by Wikipedia policy you need a reference to change it. This is not just arbitrary. If you start adding your own original research because you think it is "right" then someone else, with a different calculator or a different set of assumptions will claim their OR is more accurate than yours. That is why, by policy, we rely on verifiable references. -Ahunt (talk)13:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the sign in the photo of the engine is not a verifiable reference?AMCKen (talk)20:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure signs have been used as refs before, but this one may not be that reliable as it sounds like it was rounded off. 2540 and 2490 rounded off to two significant digits are both 2500. -Ahunt (talk)20:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Aircraft Piston Engines' by Herschel Smith says 2500cuin. which is a darn sight closer to reality than 2540. Perhaps the marketing department called it a 2500 instead of a 2490 'cause it sounded better. "Sure signs have been used as refs before, but this one may not be that reliable as it sounds like it was rounded off" - _some_ books aren't reliable either. The US military method of 'rounding' (sometimes up, sometimes down) to the nearest 5 cuin for the designation is only an approximation. They could call it an R-1900 instead of R-1820 if they wanted to impress someone with 'mine is bigger than yours'. "different calculator or a different set of assumptions " such as? You do the math - 12 cylinder engine, bore 6 3/8", stroke 6 1/2", what do you get?  : )AMCKen (talk)02:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You too!

Please don't link to Aviastar. It's a horrific example of copyvio throughout - seeWP:AVIASTAR. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}00:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's where the pictures are. Got another place for pictures?AMCKen (talk)02:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures or no and other sources or no, you can't link to Aviastar perWP:ELNEVER point #1. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}00:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year!FWiW Bzuk (talk)02:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You too.AMCKen (talk)06:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating edit here!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rolls-Royce_Pennine

(It's caused me to lose the will to haveanything more to do on the edit side of WP - you take it up if you like)

31.52.97.94 (talk)23:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've sent a reply. : )AMCKen (talk)03:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks! Incidentally, with regard to the nonsense at Crecy, you might like to know that Gunston in 'Rolls-Royce Aero Engines' has 'cylinders of 5.1 in bore and 6.5 in stroke, giving a capacity of 1593 cu in (26 litres)'.31.52.97.94 (talk)04:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your powerful reply at 'Talk: Pennine' prompted me to revert. Thanks!31.52.97.94 (talk)13:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the truth about the Crecy? And not just a re-tell of erroneous data from others? : )AMCKen (talk)23:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AMCKen,I have read the entirety of your talk page, and agree with your math. I disagree with your insistance on changing historical nomenclature. I agree that engineers have likely been swayed by marketing to "up the ante" and increase the sizes of their engines. However, even if this has occurred, engines, like all products come to be known by the name given them. Regardless of whether the Chrysler 383 c.i. engine is 372 c.i. or 392 c.i., the Chrysler Corporation identified it as the "383" in both historical documents and advertising campaigns.

To change its historical name to the "372" is the equivalent of changing all references of "Wild Bill Hickock" to "Wild William Hickock". While accurate, it is not the name he is known by and would introduce problems for those attempting to research him.

I have no issue with you modifying the actual displacement specifications of engines to be more mathematically accurate, but to insist on changing the historical nomenclature of engines to match mathematical measurements, only introduces confusion.

Bluenotefan (talk)04:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look. I'm not sure I did that - wasn't me.AMCKen (talk)04:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you foryour contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits toJune 29, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance withHelp:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, thereversion of clear-cutvandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --Mufka^(u)(t)(c)09:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you continue to mark most of your edits as minor. Please stop doing this as it is considered disruptive. If you have questions please ask. --Mufka^(u)(t)(c)00:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedMary Hopkin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageQue Sera Sera. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To You and Yours!FWiW Bzuk (talk)21:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back atcha!AMCKen (talk)07:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AMCKen. Voting in the2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please reviewthe candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours!FWiW Bzuk (talk)21:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You too. Seems I've not logged in since before then. :)AMCKen (talk)19:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AMCKen. Voting in the2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North!FWiW Bzuk (talk)16:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:

This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia'sminimum standard for inline citations. Pleasecite your sources usingfootnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please seeReferencing for beginners. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

FailsWP:NCREATIVE. Requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. IMDb is not an acceptable source.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitwhen they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Roger Mainwood and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go toDraft:Roger Mainwood, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk or on thereviewer's talk page.
• You can also useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk)08:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,AMCKen!Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!Dan arndt (talk)08:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? imdb is not credible? I see them in 'external links' all the time. I had an earlier submission declined because wikipedia wasn't credible. What do you want? There are multiple article in wiki with Roger's name in them. How is he not worthy?AMCKen (talk)06:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AMCKen. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AMCKen. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AMCKen. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "Roger Mainwood".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simplyedit the submission and remove the{{db-afc}},{{db-draft}}, or{{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions atthis link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.Phospheros (talk)17:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was apparently not significant enough for wikipedia, despite numerous uses of Roger's name in other articles.AMCKen (talk)04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in December 2020 someone else's submission was accepted.AMCKen (talk)20:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt fromWP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details seethe content guideline,the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as theburden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you.Toddst1(talk)21:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used wikipedia itself as a source. Is wikipedia not credible enough?AMCKen (talk)22:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I've started a discussion regarding your addition of Discogs to the external links sections of film articles atWT:MOSFILM. I don't know that it's problematic, but personally I'm not sure it's appropriate either. You're welcome to contribute to the discussion if you'd like.DonIago (talk)13:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed the links per the current direction of the discussion there; they can certainly be re-added easily enough if consensus changes. Cheers.DonIago (talk)14:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many discogs articles link to wikipedia. Why not link back to them? What's the problem with linking to a site that shows the soundtrack albums?AMCKen (talk)07:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to raise that point atWT:MOSFILM, but I would suggest, rather than adding links to Discogs, that you consider creating a proper Soundtrack section for the film articles of interest to you. Discogs contains user-submitted content and consequently is not areliable source, but perWP:ELNO #1, as Discogs isn't a unique resource it likely also shouldn't be added as an external link when other, more reliable sites can cover the same information, and potentially more accurately. I think it may be more appropriate to add Discogs to articles about albums/songs than films. In any case, as I did start a discussion atWT:MOSFILM, I'd recommend raising any concerns there, where more editors can weigh in. Cheers!DonIago (talk)14:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also contains user-submitted content. I tried once before to cite wikipedia in another wikipedia article and was told I needed a better source. ;)AMCKen (talk)06:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not sure what point you're trying to make here. Wikipedia obviously shouldn't be used in citations, as discussed atWP:CIRCULAR.DonIago (talk)14:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

of significant figures.

It occurs to me that, according to the approach to engine displacement taken by some other editors, and explained in exhausting and missing-the-point detail some years ago, the R-R Merlin is 1600 ci and the Griffon 2200.

31.51.219.172 (talk)18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll be off by 40 to 50 cubic inches - not an insignificant amount. The Merlin is 1649ci (27Li), not 1600 (26.2Li). The Griffon is 2239ci (36.7Li), not 2200 (36.1Li). No references I have seen have ever rounded to the nearest 100ci. Will we also call the V-1710 just a 1700?AMCKen (talk)04:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: I agree with every word. It's notmy attitude: it's theirs! My comment was intended to illustrate the absurdity of the 'significant figures' approach.31.51.219.172 (talk)17:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:)AMCKen (talk)01:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curbon7 was:

This submission is not adequately supported byreliable sources.Reliable sources are required so that information can beverified. If you need help with referencing, please seeReferencing for beginners andCiting sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

IMDb is not a valid source, perWP:RS.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitwhen they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Roger Mainwood and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go toDraft:Roger Mainwood, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curbon7 (talk)07:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who the heck do you consider a reliable source? I see imdb in many other articles. But then I've seen wikipedia reject wikipedia as a reliable source too, so who really knows for sure.AMCKen (talk)07:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No response?AMCKen (talk)04:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And on December 17, 2020, someone else's submission was accepted.AMCKen (talk)20:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you please find a source for the Canadian chart positions you're adding to articles before adding them? If you're citingRPM, you can most likely find them throughhttps://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/search.aspx but the specific links are preferred. Regardless of where you are getting them from, as you may be aware, all content added to Wikipedia should be sourced perWP:V or it can be challenged and removed. Thanks.Ss11215:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see many charts without the citings. I can add them to each entry if you wish. The 'US' one says nothing other than 'Billboard 100'. I changed theCA toCA if that helps.AMCKen (talk)05:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedAtomic Rooster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCAN. Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)05:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mAndrzejbanas. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide areliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like toinclude a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look atreferencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you.Andrzejbanas (talk)22:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did inTwist and Shout. There is aManual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason.It doesn't matter if that's how it appears on the article or the records. That's how we format band names now. Also seeWikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles.ResPM (T🔈🎵C)01:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? It seems rather silly.AMCKen (talk)03:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Если попугай в автомобиле то ему в спальном отсеке хорошо будет? Если покупать в приличном виде то я думаю можно будет брать, а если нет то не стоит тратить время и деньги за хлам. А то зачем копить на драндулет ржавый?!!!!!!А вот хороший взял бы (если бы был от 1960 года).95.183.82.203 (talk)13:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What?Rule of three is used to keep entries short. Your addition made Pinsent's credits 4.Rusted AutoParts06:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed as the eight person in the credits for The Shipping News. He was in 36 episodes of The Forest Rangers. Which is more notable?AMCKen (talk)06:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to fight over what's a more notable credit, I only undid your edit because of rule of 3, if you feel strongly about this particular credit being one of his prominent roles, feel free to swap it in.Rusted AutoParts06:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe I will.AMCKen (talk)06:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a issue of what should be included, after glancing over his IMDB I would argue either his tenure asBabar or his role onThe Red Green Show would be a better choice.Rusted AutoParts06:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For many of our generation, it is his best known role.AMCKen (talk)06:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But is what he was known for in ones generation reflective of him as a whole? It's better to try to pick out the credits that are best reflective of his career. Looking through Pinsent's page,Forest Rangers seems more of a footnote. It doesn't appear in his lead paragraph, and is just mentioned amongst other credits without much other details. I've combed through his IMDB and would say the credit order should goBabar (as it's a role he's played over 20 years, with 65 episodes in the main series),The Red Green Show (60 episodes) andAway from Her (prominent film role).Rusted AutoParts06:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits toJim Brown while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks beingblocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia'spolicy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals yourIP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk)00:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 December 2023,In the news was updated with an item that involved the articleHenry Sandon, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on thecandidates page.PFHLai (talk)07:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, continuingthis old thread about Discogs (referring tothis discussion), I'm concerned your ideas about what should and shouldn't be linked are very far out of step with current guidelines and community norms. For example, seeWikipedia:External links/Perennial websites § Discogs. We don't link to sites just because they link back to us, as was custom in the earlier days of the web; instead we link to websites based on whether they adhere to theexternal links guidelines. I removed the Discogs link you added toJim Thorpe, which is very far outside the bounds of what we would normally link (especially in a featured article!), with a more comprehensive explanation inthis edit summary.Graham87 (talk)09:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a link to Dancing on the Moon, it was on an album called Pulver Rising. I also have a link to it:[4]https://www.allmusic.com/album/pulver-rising-mw0001882734Wikivisitor2022 (talk)00:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you do, but the link that was on the page went to the 1935 film of the same name.AMCKen (talk)06:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedShakin' All Over, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageChad Allan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedJames Last, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageEl Condor Pasa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.AMCKen (talk)18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mTJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,Apollo 8, but you didn't provide areliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like toinclude a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look atreferencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you.TJRC (talk)22:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cited wikipedia. Is that not enough?AMCKen (talk)23:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't cite anything at all; here's the edit:[5]. No source whatsoever. But since you ask, no, you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source for itself. It's essentially the same as saying "I'm the King of France," and then claiming to be the king of France, citing to your own statement to demonstrate its truth.

If you click on the link "reliable source" in my note above, you'll see that the issue is discussed there (under "User-generated content"): "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are ... Wikipedia (self referencing). ... In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source."

If you could cite Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia, it would just propagate errors throughout the entire encyclopedia.TJRC (talk)01:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So wikipedia is not a reliable source? Then why are we here?AMCKen (talk)19:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to fend off vandals, jokers and nutjobs and occasionally add something we think might be useful. (but it is definitely not me: I love to add useless articles, such asVasya Pupkin orTurkey bowling orbahur orVeronika Sexl, just because the I've found these titles amusing :-). --Altenmann>talk08:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedThe Searchers discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCAN.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)05:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, bot.AMCKen (talk)06:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) toBill Mumy have been removed because you cited the information you added toIMDb. As discussed atWP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is considered a questionable source, and generally should not be used as a sole reference. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reliable source, or with an additional source confirming the information from IMDb. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you.DonIago (talk)01:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HelloAMCKen - seeTalk: Bee Gees#Coincidence of timing of deaths of 2 of the drummers and discuss there if you wish, but please don't keep adding this coincidental fact after being reverted. Thank you.Tvoz/talk00:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not true?AMCKen (talk)00:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to decide it is not appropriate?AMCKen (talk)19:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs not ref: : it does not say that"Song of the Plains". is translation of polyushko-pole. --Altenmann>talk16:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But wiki says "Paul Robeson recorded an English translation of the song in 1942 under the title "Song of the Plains". It was released on his Columbia Recordings album Songs of Free Men." and that's the album and song as shown in discogs. Have you listened to the Robeson version? It's the same music.AMCKen (talk)20:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#YouTube. -FlightTime(open channel)03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the youtube. Is that proof enough? Wiki says that wiki isn't a reliable source. Why are we here?AMCKen (talk)04:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding link to discogs, because:

1. it does not confirm that Paul Robson's is atranslation of Poluyshko, I already told you that several times.
2. discogs is user-generated, therefore cannot be valid reference for wikipedia, seeWP:USERGENERATED. --Altenmann>talk07:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki says the album and song titles, just like discogs says. Why can you not see that? I've seen that wiki isn't a reliable source for wiki.AMCKen (talk)07:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am repeating for theFIFTH time: I requested a reference that Robeson's is theTRANSLATION. I do not question that Robeson did sing the "Song of the Plains". --Altenmann>talk08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you listened to the Robeson version yet? It is obviously the same song. You spelled his name wrong too. ;)AMCKen (talk)08:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the tune is the same. But Wikipedia still needs a reference about this and abouttranslation (I do not have a still larger font to shout it out to you even louder). Heilgrammar nazi :-) I am surprized you didnt notice I do not capitalize wikipedia. I understand it is pretty annoying when one demands refs for things that "everyone knowns". Believe me, I am sometimes on the receiving side as well. --Altenmann>talk08:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And all I am doing is adding a link to the album mentioned.AMCKen (talk)20:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fat, you don't have to because there is an articleSongs of Free Men (I've linked just now)

In fat, I added the link there. ;)AMCKen (talk)20:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, your recent edits toJuly 29 have been reverted. Please make sure that you read and understandWP:DOYCITE, which explicitly states "Any material appearing in a days of the year list must be verifiable by referring to a reliable source which directly supports the entry". Thanks,Kiwipete (talk)02:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not reliable? Then why are we here?!AMCKen (talk)05:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, Wikipedia cannot be used as areliable source. See, for example,WP:UGC orWP:CIRCULAR.Kiwipete (talk)20:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So WTF is a good source? A picture of his birth certificate?AMCKen (talk)23:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you have a good read of bothWP:RS andWP:CITATION.Kiwipete (talk)23:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pages with missing files
• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC