Talk:F/A-XX program

Disambiguation page links

BilCat, I'd ask you to please stop reverting the inclusion of this wikilink. I've asked you repeatedly to explain how the removal of it improves the article. You've failed to provide an explanation, simply linking to WP:FURTHERDAB which does not actually support the removal of this link. First, as I noted before, that page is a guideline, not policy. Second, as the relevant section notes, it is explicitly an allowable exception to the general practice on links to disambiguations when "several different articles might be of interest to the reader and multiple ones are listed on the disambiguation page." That's what's happening here. In this case, all of the links on the disambiguation page are variations on the RSTA/ISR/ISTAR/C4IST concept. All of these are variants of the same general concept of Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition, just in slightly different flavors by branch of service and historical context (for instance, "STA" is an outdated term and has been replaced with RSTA; they both are the same concept but one was developed by the USMC and the other by the USA/USAF).

Removing of the wikilink does absolutely nothing to benefit the article. It's not even a policy that is required to be enforced. It's simply detrimental and destructive to the article. So, unless you can articulate a good, policy-based reason for not doing so in this specific case, I'll ask you to please stop. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

EW links to a page with EA on it (hence the subset comment), stop this back-and-forth link edit warring and finally, stop adding all those useless spaces to the infobox. - wolf 01:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Two edits are not a "back-and-forth link edit warring", certainly not to the point where it would merit you issuing aggressive warning templates to admins. Stop it, do better. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(watching) ...issuing aggressive warning templates to admins, ah. @Swatjester: are you acting as an editor or an admin on this topic? SN54129 — Review here please :) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to an admin action I've made on this topic? That should answer your question. I brought it up because WP:DTR, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE are all things that BilCat (and Wolfchild) blatantly ignored. Now, how about asking the same question of them? Seeing as they're the ones throwing around threats of blocking? Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Swatjester You're involved in a content dispute which means you're not an admin, you're just a plain ole editor like the rest us. You discuss, try to build a consensus, or seek dispute resolution. You don't revenge tag and keep waving your admin flag about, as if it makes you special, when it doesn't. Do better - wolf 14:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, you're in no position to be talking about discussion or building a consensus given that I'm the only one who has attempted to build consensus on a talk page here, while you simply dive-bombed into a content dispute you were involved with and started issuing blocking threats. You tried to throw your weight around, and you got clapped back on for it. Quit misrepresenting the situation. I made two edits to the article over the course of multiple days. BilCat, a non-admin user involved in the dispute, began issuing templated warnings to me threatening blocking. You then jumped in and involved yourself in the same dispute and likewise made templated threats. Now, BilCat isn't an admin so I can understand their lack of understanding of basic policies and guidelines, but you? Holy shit, you know better. Frankly, you should be desysopped for your behavior here. If you're actually interested in improving the article, you're welcome to start practicing what you preach. But I suspect you're not and you never were. So how about you move along now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Not only is most of what you posted here largely disingenuous, it is also quite rude. I think you owe BiCat an apology, and as for me, go ahead and try to desysop me... I dare ya. - wolf 18:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Swatjester BilCat has been here for about as long as you have and has made almost 10 times as many edits as you. Your notion that BilCat does not understand basic policies and guidelines because he is not an admin is behavior unbecoming an admin. Furthermore, threatening to desysop a non-admin shows a lack of competence on your part. I don't want to contribute to the current admin shortage, but it appears to me that you consider adminship to be a hat more than a tool. I would not be opposed to an RfDA, but I'll let BilCat file one if he believes it to be necessary. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to where I threatened anyone with desysopping? I'd wait, but we'd be sitting here to the heat death of the universe because it's never happened. Read carefully, for comprehension this time, what I said. Now consider, using context clues, that it's unlikely that a non 'crat would be threatening anyone. Meanwhile, seeing as you've *actually* threatened me with desysopping (e.g. RFDA)...... FAFO. Don't write checks you can't cash. Also, equating edit count to knowledge of policy in a world of automated tools? And this is what you jumped in here with? Don't make me laugh. You're in no position to be talking about any "lack of competence." ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So maybe you didn't exactly threaten to desysop Wolf (nor did I threaten to desysop you), but you can't deny saying that Wolf, a non-admin, should be desysopped. While I don't usually equate edit counts with knowledge, the fact that BilCat has contributed far more content to this project than you (293 mainspace articles created to your 14) is evidence that he is far more well versed in content policies and guidelines, but more importantly when to use WP:IAR, than you are. The highly petty nature of your last comment and your attempt to boomerang my remarks only strengthens my position to talk of a lack of competence. I highly suggest you back off and apologize to BilCat, even if he was wrong, your handling of the situation is not exactly the kind of civility we expect from an admin. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Imagine talking about "highly petty" after coming at me with a demonstrably false accusation, getting called out on it, and saying "So maybe you didn't exactly do the thing I accused you of...." and then trying to tell me who I should be apologizing to? Nah, miss me with that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you seem to be in a very poor mood with regards to this article and those involved here? You don't want to be templated, I won't template you, but the attitude needs to change. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. At least I said I was wrong. But my choice of words is beside the point, which is how does an editor experienced enough to be an admin make such a rookie mistake like talking of desysopping a non-admin? - ZLEA _T\^C 15:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You didn't say you were wrong. In fact the opposite, you weaseled out of that and you didn't apologize. Your choice of words is not besides the point, you fabricated whole cloth something I never said. So if you're going to keep accusing me of "lack of competency" or "rookie mistakes", on a thread where you've already demonstrated not only those things but a complete lack of honesty and integrity -- well, I guess you just answered 331dot's question. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's especially ironic that you're accusing me of these things while actively brigading/meatpuppeting on behalf of your bestie, BilCat while seeking off-wiki investigation of my account. Rest assured, I will escalate this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a thorough investigation could be necessary, but luckily, that won't take place off-wiki. SN54129 18:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Shoot your shot if you think so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sj: Oops. Enough of this nonsense. Instead of all this rage-posting of generally rude and hypocritical threats, accusations and insults, do you think maybe we can get back on topic now? - wolf 18:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I retracted that after I realized that I was incorrect -- I should have checked the rights log to actually confirm, but saw the administrator's newsletter on your userpage and made a hasty assumption. I apologize for the error, and the subsequent tone I took w/ you based on it. Unlike someone else on this thread, I'll actually admit when I make a mistake and apologize for it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If it’s another acknowledgment of my wrong that you want, then you’ll get it. I apologize for misinterpreting your post as a threat. As for my suspecting you to be compromised, my suspicions were sound, and you have no reason to escalate anything if you are not compromised. Now let’s actually work towards de-escalating the situation. Now that I see that you have cooled down a little, I am willing to drop everything if you are. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)