User talk:HJ32

Welcome!

Hello, HJ32, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Your contributions on the F-14 Tomcat are much appreciated; the article has been in need of an expert, especially in its recent usage. I hope you stick around and add to other articles as well. You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft and Wikipedia:Wikiproject Military History.

--Mmx1 19:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

F-14 Tomcat

I am sorry if my reversions offended you in any way. I am truly grateful for your many years of service to our country. Many users, including myself, do not use the email feature on Wikipedia, preferring to do all our communicating through Wikipedia. For me, this is primarily a convinience issue, with some safety and anonimity concerns also. Thank you for understanding.

Actually, I said "somewhat speculative", not "highly speculative"; there is a great difference. But my primary reason for reverting your material was that you did not cite your sources. Wikipedia does not allow original research, which means that no first-hand information can be given without a verifiable source. Your knowledge will be useful in spotting errors, and recognizing good sources. I know that not all material on the F-14 page is properly sourced, but the policy was not enforced for along time. The current editors/users here are now doing our best to clean that up, and unfourtunately the easiest way to do that is in not allowinag anymore uncited material to be added. We are doing our best to source the other material, but as you can see the Tomcat pages are very long.

Please take a look at WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research for a better explanation of what is allowed on Wikipedia, and why. I look forward to working with you here. - BillCJ 05:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

HJ response --- No offense taken and I did review Wiki policy, which is entirely reasonable. I'll add sources I find reliable. As a published author and editor, I do original research all the time otherwise errors tend to repeat themselves or subtle (or even glaring omissions) end up manifesting themselves. The Tomcat article skips all over the place and has/had some of those weaknesses. Getting sources is not difficult, just learning how to use the Wiki tools or I would have already done it.

The only weakness I see in policy is tendancy to use published sources that repeat errors. If there are knowledge gaps or errors not addressed by a published source, Wikipedia cannot claim to be truly current as editor would have to wait for a published source to address same, which may or may not happen. Interesting dilemma.

Yes, it is an intersting dilema. Fortunately, if you see an accurate source online from a reputable site, those can be cited too. And I don't think there's anything wrong with using your knowledge to "screen" sources either. Also, you can site yourself, as long as it's been published somewhwere.

As far as learning to use Wikipedia goes, you'll find that most of the editors are willing to help, especially if they know it's not just some vandal screwing around. If you aren't sure exactly how to cite your sources, just place all the info in the text with your material, and someone else can format it for you. That way you'll have a pattern to copy, and it makes citing the same source again even easier. Also, if you aren't sure about something, just ask on the talk page of that article. You can even use the talk page to elaborate on something from the text that you know or have experienced, but aren't able to source properly. Most of us editors love anything to do with aviation - that's why we're here - and we love those little tidbits.

Finally, if you haven't already, take a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft pages, especially the Page content section. You'll find them very helpful in dealing editing the aircraft pages, and each section has a talk page also. - BillCJ 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

HJ response to BillCJ

Fair enough...there is quite a bit of new info out there with Tony Holmes doing a lot of detailed writing for his Osprey series as well as lots of articles being published on the Tomcat due to its Sunset recently occuring. I led the writing team for two books on the the Tomcat published this year (Hildebrandt-Snodgrass-Parsons and Parsons-Hall-Lawson))and run the Tomcat-Sunset.org website, which has a detailed "living" history section that will be published in a year or so as well. I'll continue to work up a detailed history (still sorting interviews and notes from Tomcat Sunset and Panel Symposium that had six hours of dialogue featuring 18 notable individuals who participated in key Tomcat events). I'll be more than happy to help evolve the Wiki article IAW Wiki guidelines while helping improve the published legacy of the Tomcat. Cheers, HJ

You've been awarded a Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		You've been awarded this Barnstar by Aerobird for your work on improving the AIM-9 Sidewinder article. Keep up the good work!

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 14:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

TOPGUN/NSAWC

HJ--don't know if you prefer feedback here or on the original user's page, so I'll start here. (If I came off as cranky in my edits, I apologize--I work all night and sometimes I get the coffee jitters.) As you can tell, I was a zoomie and that's my specialty. I changed the wording there only for the sake of what wiki calls POV / NPOV. Once you reverted it back, I let well enough alone--I know how I feel about my writing and I wouldn't get into a revert battle with a Navy jock anyway. I mention this only because it appears the restored phrasing may have been typed with a wee bit of emotion (coupla typos). I don't like to step on the toes of fellow editors, but really don't want to irritate a fellow aviator. --Buckboard 14:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot why I came over here, so dazzled was I by myself. The information regarding NSAWC you left on my page was helpful and I appreciate it. I want to tackle the maze of units and programs at Nellis but its a daunting task, and anything that provides a model is helpful. Thanx.--Buckboard 15:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. it's all part of the Wiki process!HJ 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1978? Jeez, you're almost a geezer like me. Note, I said "almost." Have a good one! --Buckboard 07:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Temporary Articles (USC Title 10)

Oh, that's easy to solve. If you want a place like the sandbox but that's more permanent, just create a subpage under the link User:HJ32/Title 10 of the United States Code. That will let you edit the article in relative peace. When you're done, just WP:MERGE the contents by copying them into the article. ColourBurst 01:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...that is what I have been searching and been unable to find...HJ 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you know

About the Counter-vandalism unit. I think it's something you might be interested in. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor

It's an often vandalised article I've had on my watchlist for sometime now. Sometimes they're hard to keep up with. Some great shots on your user page BTW. Dan D. Ric 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd much prefer to be adding to articles, but most of my time is spent reverting and reporting vandals. Only USMC article I've contributed to has been HMLA-367, a squadron I flew missions with as an Army Cobra pilot in 1969-1970. Dan D. Ric 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

EA-18 "Shocker"??

A user has claimed on the EA-18 Growler talk page that the Growler is now called the "Shocker". Do you have any information on this being the official name? I have a response on the talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Officially, it's the Growler, but the community is calling it the Shocker. Likewise, the E/F community call themselvers "Rhino" drivers even though the official name is Super Hornet. HJ 01:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. That's kinda what I thought. I think the user got mixed up, and assumed Shocker was the official name. As to the Tomcat being the Turkey, I believe its distant relative, the TBF Avenger, was also called the Turkey for similar reasons. And I seem to recall reading that Rhino was sometimes used for the F-4, in its case because it was so ugly. I don't think the Super Hornet quite has that problem. - BillCJ 02:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All true. The Marines went nuts over calling their RF-4 the Rhino (even had an annual ice sculpture made for Tailhook in their infamous suite at Tailhook with the horn sprouting liquid refreshment). The Navy had to come up with a two syllable name that didn't include Hornet to avoid confusion at the boat for its "Ball call" hence emergence of Rhino. Shocker is the first time I've heard of a name preceding fleet introduction, but it arose after the Prowler community was surveyed last year and objected to Growler. The Super Hornet folks liken their aircraft to being big and gray and powerful like a Rhino so it isn't because they think its ugly at all as you observe. HJ 02:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

70.17.131.121

Sorry I don't know what happened. Thanks for correcting the vandalism that came out of my IP adress. I don't know who did it but thanks for correcting it. I'm really sorry about the trouble this caused. -Vcelloho 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries....chasing and fixing the electronic graffiti left behind by vandals seems to be a never-ending task. HJ 13:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tu-95 interceptions

Tehre's a discussion regarding interceptions of Soviet bombers by allied fighters at Talk:Tupolev Tu-95#Mischief in the Air Bias tag. Given your participation in such events, I'd be interested in your take on the whole issue there. THanks. - BillCJ 17:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thx. Comments posted. HJ 23:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

I know these weren't your birds, but would you take a look at the discussion at Talk:F/A-18E/F Super Hornet#Climb rate & max speed, and see if it all seems kosher to you. User: LordKadghar has posted in sections above the last comment too. I have a reason for asking, but I'd like to see what you think first. THanks. - BillCJ 01:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill - Comparing max speeds and climbs isn't realistic in my book as LordT (who appears to be a Red Ripper) notes, operational perfromance is nowhere near the manufacturer or Navy Fact File specs. Does it mean they're wrong? Not at all, just different configurations, which is why it's hard to compare aircraft if you don't have same altitude, temperature, loadout, fuel, etc. Suppose it's an aviation task force issue to decide what to use and even if you can get a standard reference for aircraft from different eras or countries. Can only guess what it was that prompted the note. I think you have to stick to official sources on max speeds and other specs. My view is that they are like car brochures (your mileage may be different).HJ 01:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to get another professional's opinion. My take is this guy is young to think he still knows everything! Also, my bs-detector went off, and I just wanted to see if it was malfunctioning. Apparently it is, though it did seem strange to me a pilot would quote a speed without mentioning the altitue in an argument over max speed! Of course, he may be a Foxtrot backseater, which means he isn't a pilot. I'm not sure he ever stated that he was a pilot, so that may be my mistake. Thanks again, and I hope this isn't too minor an issue for you. Good to see you are still around here! - BillCJ 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)