User talk:Dogue

Hello Dogue, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Leonard^Bloom Good luck, and have fun. --Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


AfD nomination of Area 58

An article that you have been involved in editing, Area 58, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area 58. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please reconsider

yes virgina there is an area 58:

"The first SDS satellites were placed into highly elliptical "Molniya" orbits to send images from KH-11 electro-optical reconnaissance satellites back to the DCEETA/Area 58 ground station at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia (38d44m10s N, 77d09m30s W). It is possible that some later SDS satellites were placed in geosynchronous orbits and may serve as relays for other NRO satellites, such as Lacrosse." [[1]]

or the google books The US Intelligence Community: "large windowless two-story building officially know as the Defence Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity DCEETA, and also known as Area 58. While initially Fort Belvoir site was the only downlink.." [[2]]

NYTimes: "Orbiting the earth every 92 minutes at an altitude of between 170 and 320 miles, the satellite's signals are first transmitted to another satellite. The pictures are then retransmitted down to analysts at the Mission Ground Site, a large, windowless, two- story concrete building at Fort Belvoir, near Washington, with the cover name of Defense Communications Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity." http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30D10F73D5F0C708DDDA80894DD484D81 logon required

The book Deep Black also confirm the history about President Carter and operations at DCEETA.

Apparantly the link to Mr Hamre remarks was suppressed September 2008 after being active for 8 years. "www.insidedefense.com/public/award1new.asp" -- could not be found which confirmed the link between DCEETA and Area 58.

therefore, we have 3 independant sources that confirm the existance of Area 58 and its equivalence with DCEETA.

how unoriginal could i get?

As to notability, is Menwith Hill notable? is Area 51 notable? are the means and methods used to transmit Satellite Intelligence to the ground notable? Or is the question really don't spread open source secrets around?

The concept of Area 58 is falsifiable. is there any source that denies the existance of area 58? Is the explanation reasonable?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomStar81" TomStar81 (Talk) 20:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Communications Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity

Hi Dogue. I userfied the draft article to User:Dogue/DCEETA (draft) since talk pages ordinarily are for communication, not draft articles. -- Suntag ☼ 19:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should use Template:Cite news, Template:Cite web, Template:Cite book, and/or Template:Cite journal for the footnotes. I provide an example. -- Suntag ☼ 19:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something that you might find interesting. And check this out. Also, you might be interested to know that the CIA has consulted with Wikipedia to learn how to better cross reference and provide additional access paths to the secret information it gathers for each of its agents. My guess is that they adopt a lot of the same policies that Wikipedia develops through consensus for their own usage. TTFN. -- Suntag ☼ 19:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to put the rest of the footnotes in Template:Cite news, Template:Cite web, Template:Cite book, and/or Template:Cite journal. Also, the draft uses too many quotes. The article should be written, not copied from here and there. -- Suntag ☼ 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed White DCEETA?

http://www.belvoireagle.com/index.php/sports-articles/hrc_takes_first_place_finish_in_golf_tournament/

Hi. I've been looking at the DCEETA article. It appears that a very large percentage of it is lifted and quoted from other places. These are copyright violations. While it's good that you have, and are using, references, you can't just lift text off other places and contribute it to Wikipedia, even if you place quote marks around it. You need to re-write these sections ASAP or it will be removed. Please see Wikipedia policy on copyright for guidance. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. What you have added may constitute fair-use. But it's generally not acceptable to have an article where the majority of it is just lifted for other places. I see that User:Suntag already pointed this out a couple of weeks back. No-one is trying to 'supress the truth'. Just re-write the sections to reflect what your cites say (without adding your own slant), and then include the cites. I'm trying to help you write a good Wikipedia article that won't get 'nuked'. There is a line you need to draw between directly copying other's work, and making up your own. Sometimes it's not easy. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dogue. You have new messages at Signaleer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mediation case

You would wish to be aware of this Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-14 DCEETA

ALR (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of DCEETA

I have nominated DCEETA, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DCEETA. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. EyeSerenetalk 12:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DCEETA

DCEETA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'm nominating this for its second AfD - the first saw the article deleted, and was upheld at deletion review. However, the article has since been recreated, and is different enough that I was reluctant to CSD G4 it. An attempt has been made to produce a sourced article, but by stringing together a series of loosely-connected assertions. When the sources and associated text are examined, it becomes clear that the article is almost wholly a product of WP:OR (and especially WP:SYNTH); I see no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for disseminating the truth - I'd like to recommend that this be deleted once more, and salted. EyeSerenetalk 12:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree completely with the nom, the recent attempts have proven why it shouldn't exist. Should also be protected from recreation. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've spent quite a lot of effort trying to encourage the originator to bring the article to a state where it can justify its existence. At present I don't believe that a single SGS is notable, the other material in the article is predominantly original research, trivia and padding. The excessive overquoting of tangential sources seeks to obfuscate the lack of substance to the article. ALR (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Agree with the nom. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axe it I thought about afding this myself, but didn't want to be that guy, so I was waiting to see if the creator would do something with the article, and that hasn't happened. TomStar810 (Talk) 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

abstain very well, i can see the fix is in. the fact remains that the article is supported by five independant, verifiable, published sources: the New York Times, inside defense, the The US Intelligence Community, News of cosmonautics, and Deep Black. this installation is just as notable as Menwith Hill, Pine Gap, or Buckley AFB. (repeating myself since the statements remain unrefuted). "I see no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources." - did you really examine the sources before mischaracterizing them, unlike ALR? (and repeating) suppressing this article is a losing battle gentlemen, do the ends justify the means? the day of reckoning will come for us all, i hope you have better arguments prepared, than your excuses given here. Dogue (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not be so concerned, there are 4 more days to show foolishness for what it is. But balance requires treating this more as a game than as the Judgement of God. DGG (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, deletion of this article would be remarkable and unfortunate, and with ample time remaining there are likely to be a good number more keeps. Since the argument of your "abstain" is for keeping, I suggest clarifying it into a "keep" for the benefit of whatever busy admin closes the AfD.John Z (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Satellite Ground Station

A tag has been placed on Satellite Ground Station requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy 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 contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Algebraist 19:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

friends

Anyone who gives me such a good opportunity for a clever quip is a friend for life. DGG (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well at least the aol executive Jonathan Miller (businessman) got saved. it demonstrates that consensus, can be used to act out vendettas, or keep secrets (well within wiki, the fact that a google reveals the information, defeats the purpose of the delete votes) call me niaf but the reclassification of open information is troubling in the attempt, and futile in execution. Dogue (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases

user:dogue/Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases

Menwith Hill

I'm not entirely sure why you're telling me this. I've only made one edit to the article, and it was rather superficial. Natalie (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibin Area 58

Roads

Source Material

Hey, I've got some source material you might be interested in, that would rectify *most* of the complaints listed above. Interested? NRO FOIA request] Craftsman2001 (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerospace Data Facility, East 23:32, 16 June 2009 UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) deleted "Aerospace Data Facility, East" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: This has been deleted twice through AFD. The onus is on the author to add new sources before reposting the page) apparantly they ain't interested; interesting. Dogue (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the AfD - I'm telling you there's no bounds to "groupthink" stupidity. I placed three documents on your user page. They're no longer classified; gained thru Freedom of Information Act request(s). These sources basically state... your article was "right on". But hey, what do I know? I'm just an independent thinker. Pbx-127 (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to join the fray, I guess! I posted a copy of an interesting article on your raison-d'tre article (Area 58). It mentions A-58, DCEETA, and the new MGS names. Graeme artist (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at blog


Articles for deletion nomination of Louis R. Gottschalk

I have nominated Louis R. Gottschalk, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis R. Gottschalk. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 10:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Aerospace Data Facility, East, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

We'll have the full story... at 11! 23:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
user:Mackensen, when you speedy delete articles without notice that have gone through AfC, you are violating policy and undermining the credibility of the AfC process. is this installation the American equivalent of Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station? are you not concerned that this might reflect on you like Streisand? 198.24.31.116 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it was tagged for speedy deletion by GhostlyLegend (talk · contribs) on the grounds that it was the re-creation of a deleted article (which it was). That being said, those deletions were four years ago. I have no particular views on the matter one way or the other and I'm happy to restore although someone might AfD it again. It's unclear that AfC realized that this content had been deleted twice before. You might consider in the future simply asking me (or whomever) first before jumping to the conspiracy accusations. I deleted over fifty pages that day. Best. Mackensen (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
speedy deletion without notification. out of process deletion. it's unclear if passing the AfC process means it was notable all along.
don't have to jump to "conspiracy accusations": ghostlylegends has edited "Combat Stress; Aerospace Data Facility, East; Netheravon; Brigade of Gurkhas; Intelligence Corps (United Kingdom); United States Army Gas School. maybe he should declare a COI. what is the percentage of editors at this article, who have declared military employment‎? is that "correlation" significant enough for you? what percentage of those actually improved the article rather than voting for deletion? 198.24.31.116 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]