User:Born2flie

Unified login: Born2flie is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

Awards

Aviation Barnstar

I award you the Aviation Barnstar in recognition of your knowledgeable contribution to aviation articles. -Bzuk

Citation Barnstar

For great work finding references for OH-58 Kiowa - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And for adding to the ARH-70 article, among others. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviewer's Barnstar

I award this barnstar to Born2flie for reviewing all the Aviation articles and providing quality comments. Thanks and keep up the good work. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Declarations

Based on my recent experience with some fellow editors here on Wikipedia, I find it necessary to ensure that some facts about me are known in order to allow other editors to determine if a conflict of interest should ever exist with my edits. While this may have been evident to some through viewing my userboxes, I wish to leave no doubt as to certain of my interests on Wikipedia: I have been an Aviation Warrant Officer in the United States Army, and I flew the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior.

I created the United States Army Aviation Branch and 17th Cavalry Regiment (United States) articles, and I have heavily edited the Helicopter, Warrant Officer (United States), and OH-58 Kiowa articles, as well as many articles related to helicopter topics and the United States Army. My intent in editing these articles is to ensure that they are accurate. Not to my own viewpoint, but to the viewpoint of facts as can be found in reliable, verifiable sources per the Wikipedia policies. I use my knowledge and experience to locate those sources that are easily accessible and/or verifiable by other editors and wikipedia readers. I also happen to use the MLA style of citation and referencing as introduced to me by Bzuk (talk · contribs). --Born2flie (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikithoughts

• An article that achieves FA-class approval should be protected and all future edits discussed and recommended for inclusion by consensus with appropriate reference. And then, the "former FA-class" process can be eliminated. (thoughts brought about by the essay "Wikipedia Is Failing") --Born2flie 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• There are those editors who actually contribute something to Wikipedia, and then there are $x$ number more that are dreaming up and arguing over the guidelines with which to determine whether or not what editors contribute fits within their guidelines. --Born2flie 23:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• The tragedy of Wikipedia is that people believe in it as a community over all else. They seem to believe that it is supposed required to change on the personal whims of editors, and this appears to be due to their limited experience and understandings of subjects. Wikipedia is first and foremost, an attempt to make an encyclopedia. The push and pull, the ebb and flow of information and [the questionable] quality of writing brought about by such misunderstandings actually degrade Wikipedia and give its detractors (including me in these thoughts) the ammunition they use. --Born2flie 08:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not a nice guy. Let me rephrase that; I'm not here to be a nice guy, and demanding that I be a nice guy is the surest way for me to not be a nice guy. If you approach me as a nice person who is looking to honestly address an issue you have with me or an edit I have made, I will respond in the nicest possible way, and you may even come away from the encounter with the impression that I can be a nice guy. However, the demand that I be a nice guy will always be met with a product that you will not find agreeable. --Born2flie 22:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Some people just don't take criticism well. I will try to be sparing with my criticism, but when I see something that doesn't make sense, I'm not inclined to remain silent. I am willing to try nice once, maybe twice, after that there just isn't much sense in continuing with small caliber discussions. Bring out the heavy weapons and let the chips fall where they may. Credibility, a subjective quality, is often attempted to be salvaged at the expense of accuracy and honesty. --Born2flie 12:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• B-Class articles are one step removed each from A-Class, GA-Class, and FA-Class article status. If you select an article as B-Class, you're essentially saying that article is ready for the peer-review processes necessary for elevation within Wikipedia. It either is, or it isn't. There's no harm for an article to remain at Start until it is ready to be submitted for peer review. --Born2flie 12:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• You would think that if this was just a great social experiment to capture the information contained in humanity, that it wouldn't require levels of bureaucracy to enforce its policies and promote its guidelines. --Born2flie 12:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Can people whose status in their occupation is based upon their credibility afford to be entangled in Wikipedia? Which should make one wonder if it is worth it for themselves to be engaged in the pursuits of Wikipedia. --Born2flie 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• I found an editor who stated on his user page that he did not accept template messages on his user talk page. I discovered him because he posted a template message on a fellow user's page. Physician, heal thyself. #@$#^&* hypocrites. --Born2flie (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Writing an article in Wikipedia is like building a house of cards. It's all fine and good when everyone agrees how the house should be built, but the minute someone comes in with their own ideas of how to edit the article, the house is threatened, and often falls. --Born2flie (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• There's a fine line between stewardship of an article and owning the article. Stewardship, or even sponsorship, is when an editor or group of editors guides the article on the path of progression to GA- and FA-Class status. The quality of edits becomes paramount, the further the article progresses. Edits that are viewed as detrimental to the progression of the article are questioned, which gives rise to the arguments of "ownership". --Born2flie (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• The game of Wikipedia is how to build an article to the best quality without getting sidelined by incompetent editors (yes, there are plenty on Wikipedia, where everyone can edit regardless of competence). --Born2flie (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• I wonder how many speedy noms are converted to WP:Prod and then deleted anyways? In my opinion based on observation, WP should remove the nominations for speedy delete and go with Prod as the default for deletion nominations. A response to the Prod would initiate the AfD process. Speedy deletion would be an option left to the admins. After all, it is easier to upgrade an occasional prod to speedy than to deal more frequently with having to downgrade speedys to prod. --Born2flie (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• My assumption is that the use of words should facilitate comprehension and discussion, the conveyance of ideas from one living organism to another; input through the eyes and absorbed into the mind. However, even the most carefully thought out question, comment, or response is useless if the other individual wants only to accomplish their agenda with the least amount of interference from me. --Born2flie (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia standards are flexible, bendable, and in the right circumstances breakable, even if the context is incorrect (according to the very same guidelines). It is like drifting on the ocean with all of your sails, but no keel or rudder. --Born2flie (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is a free site that anyone can edit, run by the largest unpaid bureaucracy in the world. --Born2flie (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Userboxes

en This user is a native speaker of English.

This user is a certified commercial helicopter pilot.

This user is a military helicopter pilot with combat experience.

Tools I use

• MLA citation styles handbook courtesy of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
• Google Advanced Search
• Wikipedia inline templates for cleanup/copyediting
• Automated peer-review
• My peer review checklist

Stats

• My First edit
• Number of edits

Significant contributions

Sounding my own trumpet, if you will.

Articles I've created

• 17th Cavalry Regiment (United States) - Created and After moving to the mainspace.
• Aerial crane (helicopter) - Created and After moving to the mainspace.
• Autorotation (helicopter) - Created and After moving to the mainspace.
• Center of gravity (aircraft) - Created and After moving to the mainspace.
• United States Army Aviation Branch - Created and After moving to the mainspace.

Articles I've improved

In my estimation, anyways.

• Autogyro - Before and After.
• AH-56 Cheyenne - Before and After. (co-written with Fnlayson)
• Bell 533 - Before and After. (co-written with Fnlayson)
• Focke-Wulf Fw 61 - Before and After.
• Helicopter - Before and After.
• McDonnell XV-1 - Before and After. (co-written with Fnlayson)
• OH-58 Kiowa - Before and After.

Committed identity: 4b5d349c50bd6c0580dddd9eb5cf548d0776111e75a107f34582f4bb0c300b101030617c639fd9a13866e09d7c2bcf905a61afa88985102e4a85e6ded2b3cf8c is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.