User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 15

	Archives
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #14

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. Thanks!

Please add all new material to the bottom of the page!

helitack

On 20 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article helitack, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alan: Hey that is great - thanks for letting me know! - Ahunt 16:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user needing an admin-talking-too

Alan, nice Skycrane pic, btw! Sorry I wasn't able to help out.

Could you speak to User:O? Not only has he nominated the Aircontent template for TfD, he is now unilaterally tweaking bottom sections to comply with WP:MOS. Please help!! Thanks. - BillCJ 04:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my notes on the TfD and the user's talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and thanks. - BillCJ 05:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanker 910

Re-reviewed and some new comments added. Hope they help! The Rambling Man 19:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Alan, I sent you an email to your work address re: the Arbcom. thnaks for any help. - BillCJ 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon Schools

Nice work on Uncommon Schools. That article was a mess and I've been considering nominating it for Afd. Toddstreat1 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't be opposed at all to an AfD nom...clear independent confirmation of notability is still lacking, and I can't see the company meeting WP:CORP at this point. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NNPOV

Good evening. I was quite impressed by this today stefanomencarelli (Talk:AMX_International_AMX#AMX.2C_a_long.2C_sordid_and_unluckly_history) post. I have never seen one similar on wikipedia aviation project talk pages. It seems we are now experiencing phase two: orginal researches. Phase three will be probably "featured articles proposals". What is your opinion ? What has to be done ? I tried to recall WP:TALK rules at page's end, but I don't know if this is the proper way to handle such these things.--EH101 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major sigh.* All I can say is that you might want to mention this as soon as the formal ArbCom case opens. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reply. First, i am gettin amused by the continous 'interest' that EH101, interested to discredite me with all the system, continoues to overshadow me, example with continuos delatory actions. Is he not happy enought to have so kindly contributed to my wiki.it block? Well, obviously he not made nothing 'wrong', right?

What i said about AMX, sadly, is true and if requested, all referenced word-by word. EH (obviosly more interested to italian prestige) can says what he want but this is the truth. But calm down, i do not want to post in article that AMX is Paperino plane, so get relaxed.

Last word. I recall that we became in a agreement about articles in talk pages. Nothing is happening with them. Do you find funny that a lot of persons are shitting me in the discussion requests, while nobody seems to remember that agreements are at least on two parts? G.91, B-50. CF-104 still waits. Do you find honest many are accusing me while ignoring own duties? Good work, if really you care about.--Stefanomencarelli 12:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano, first off, I have suspended all work on your projects until after the ArbCom decides the case. Second, for the first project, the F104S, you posted your material in the article, not the talk like I had asked. Third, on the G.91, instead of posting a paragraph or two, you posted a huge amount of text. Do you know how long it will take to work through that? You need to be very patient if you're going to post that much. I still strongly suggest that you work in a sandbox, that way no one will roll your work back. If you need help on setting one up, please ask. Finally, you need to stop talking about other editors, since you can't seem to do that without criticizing them. EH-101 isn't out to get you, he's trying to get you to work with the project and with others. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First: i know enough mr. EH101 thanks our relaction in wiki.it and believe me for once, i cannot presume his good faith about me. If now i am here to make troubles with my bad english and italian sources, thanks to he and some others.

Do you know that he slandered me in wiki.it?
Do you know that last may he made a dossier filled with lies and wrong reported facts, that 'served' to ban me?
Check his contributions in wiki.en: he made very few, but still man of them were dedicated to diffamate and provocke me. In Talk: Attilios, in Talk:F-14, in MB.326, F-86 and now Talk:AMX to not to talk about ARBCOM. And i should be not worried about his activity? He will do his best to make me damages, and this is exactly what he want. Believe or not, i am totally sure of this.

Apart this, the absolute forbidding to edit to me in the main pages cannot be seen as absolute rule. Finally, G.91 is arguably the last long article i'll posted here, so no worry. I cannot work confined just in talks and sandboxes, after having contribued successfully in dozens webpages, just because one time more Bill and Bzuk have started an edit war against my work, and nobody cared to reduce their rollback campaing against me.--Stefanomencarelli 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano, did you not understand what I wrote? Stop criticizing other editors. It doesn't matter what they say about you, don't respond in the same way. If he slandered you in it.wiki, and you had no culpability, then his edits wouldn't have been taken seriously. If you talked about other people there the way you do here, I have no doubt that he built a dossier, just like those commenting on the ArbCom are here, because you show a long-term pattern for this behaviour, despite the efforts of a lot of us to convince you to change and learn to be kind to others. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not block users you are edit-warring with

Akradecki, it is wholly inappropriate to block a user like you did to 69.154.76.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) when you are engaged in a revert war with them. At that article, you reverted him twice, the same number of times he reverted other people. By this logic, you could be blocked too. He did not violate 3RR, he was not warned about 3RR or his blanking, and you were involved in the reverting of him. Therefore, the block has been lifted. Metros 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it wasn't an edit war. I considered wholesale blanking of cited material to be vandalism, and it when addressing vandalism by an IP, and repeated vandalism at that, it is appropriate to restore the blanked sections and to take disciplinary action with the IP. I even made it clear that I was not interested in addressing the content issues that the IP was objecting to, I was merely addressing the process. I have read no where in policy that admins who revert vandalism are barred from blocking the vandal...if I am incorrect on that, please feel free to point it out to me. I don't mean to be disrespectful towards you, but if your logic indicates that I could be blocked too, you might want to re-read policy: 3RR specifically does not apply to blatant vandalism, and policy specifically addresses blanking in this exception. He reverted by blanking three times, and policy clearly states that 3RR isn't a license to revert up to 3 times with impunity. And, again no disrespect intended, but you are incorrect in the warning area: the IP had previously been warned about blanking (in that case a user talk page) on his talk page, and I warned him about blanking cited text from the article in a response to his post on the article's talk page. I may not agree with your opinion of this, but I do respect you, and won't contest your unblock. However I assume that you will be equally vigilent to any further blanking actions by said IP, and that you will take appropriate action against him should he continue in his behavior. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, excise me for jumping in but Metros is technically right here. If it happens again, just drop me (or any admin you are comfortable with) a message and we can do the block. Personally I'd have given this one one more warning then blocked if the removals continued. I am impressed with how well you handled this; your message above is the very definition of admin-like behaviour. Best wishes, --John 04:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, you are always welcome to jump in here! In the intervening time between when I wrote my response above and now, I was away from the computer helping my daughter with trig and physics, which allowed me to mull the situation over in the back of my brain. I have to confess that having gone through my recent experienes with an IP wiki-stalker, and the appalling recent growth in IP vandalism, I guess my IP-related fuse is a bit short. Metros and you are right, I should have been more patient and warned more. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was warned once about blanking a talk page of another user so yes, I don't think that's sufficient evidence of previous warning. Without any warnings from you on the vandalism that occurred, it looks a lot like a content dispute instead of a reverting vandalism situation. For a first time user a warning is definitely necessary before a 3RR and/or vandalism block (unless it's soooo obvious the user is here for malicious intent). The IP's intent seems to be in good faith, it just needs to be reigned in. Your edit summaries to him were just "Reverted edits by..." ones so there would be no evidence for anyone in there to suggest it was anything more than a revert war. Metros 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corp-spam?

Alan, just ran into the Project On Government Oversight article. You might want to give it a once-over, as there seems to be some concern that a POGO rep has added info. It seems pretty promotional, and one-sided in its coverage, both of the organization itself, and the controversies they cover. I removed the first heading and section, which was for their blog!!! Hadn't seen that in an article before, but maybe you have. Thanks for whatever you feel is warranted here, as I honestly don't quite know what it needs, nor really want to mess with it. - BillCJ 09:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SiteSell Corporate

This editor contacted me about his username. I thought you might want to respond given you gave him a coi warning. --Ronz 18:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SeawindLogo.JPG

The most likely reason that BetacommandBot tagged that image is that the fair use rationale failed WP:NFCC#10, which requires one fair use rationale for each article where the image is used, and says the rationale must mention the article by name. It is also true that the image description page needs to list the source of the image.

I would suggest that you might ask why an image was tagged before blocking the bot for tagging it, especially if you are not completely familiar with the image policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, when it comes to bots and the speed that they work, when one malfunctions it can cause a lot of damage. Nothing his harmed, however, if a short break is taken while the quesitons are asked. If there's no problem, then all that's lost is a few minutes of work, if there is a problem, and the bot keeps running, who's going to repair the damage? I've seen bot owners refuse to do this in the past, therefore I turn the machine off, make sure there's no problem, then turn it back on again. Basic industrial safety, my friend. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing harmed? yeah right. I lost about 3 hours of bot work. (your little block stunt crashed it). Not only do I get a rude block message (for the bot without prior knowledge) that crashes the system, I dont get a "Oops Im sorry". just a problem fixed, there was no problem. If BCBot malfunctions reverting it is not that hard, I can have 2,000 reverts in within an hour or so. <OMIT MORE RANTS> Please TALK before blocking. β^_command 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS if you had taken the time to actually read the messages that the bot posted you would not have screwed up. those messages are very clear. β^_command 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 hours? The bot was down for all of a couple of minutes. If a simple shutdown crashes your system, you need to rethink your system. Bots need to be able to take a break if there's a suspicion that something is wrong. In this case, your bot message didn't address the problem. You bot message addresses 2 of the 3 criteria, and spends most of the time dwelling on the rationale. As there was a detailed rationale present, my immediate thought was that there was a problem here. It turned out that your message doesn't clearly address the need for a source statement, which is what was missing, but this was not apparent from the message. As far as saying "oops, I'm sorry," you're right, I should have apologized and been clearer that the error was mine, so I'm sorry for not saying sorry. However, as for talking before hitting the pause button, sorry, not gonna happen. I've had previous experience where a bot was malfunctioning and the owner didn't respond quickly at all. Think about it: which is the better way to err...let a malfuncioning bot run amok while people talk, or pause a good bot while a question is resolved? If you bot does malfunction, are you committed to personally going back and fixing all the problems created? If your bot can't be paused without seriously crashing the system, and if it can't be paused without causing you to fume and rant, then there's a serious problem here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that the bot is designed to stop when blocked, the bot clearly stated why it tagged the image WP:NFCC#10c you clearly did not read the message. The bot has malfunctioned in the past (very rare) and Ive reverted it. No-Big Deal. β^_command 17:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a problem with the rationale: it didn't name the article it applied to (WP:NFCC#10c). Betacommand has always been willing to fix any mistaken edits by the bot, although they have not been very common. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know that the block is malfunctioning, then blocking it is perfectly appropriate. But if you don't actually know that it's malfunctioning, in the case of this particular bot, it probably isn't. And Betacommand has, in the past, been very prompt about fixing and repairing any mistaken edits by the bot. The background here, which you may not know, is that many other people have also block ed the bot when it isn't malfunctioning, because of unfamiliarity with image policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, you think this isn't a problem? The image is clearly tagged as a free image, and yet the bot is taggin it. Now, how many more such issues are there? AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan: Thanks for fixing the image for me. Up until recently I was using an older template for fair use images and the obsolescence caught me out! - Ahunt 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is indeed taggin some images which already have a full rationale. Now why was the image Image:Sabse Bada Rupaiya1976.jpg‎ tagged? It is a nuisance to unleash something like this. It serves a good purpose in places but it shouldn't tag articles which have a full rationale ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find is very annoying that I put so much work trying to help wikipedia and I get it thrown back at me with images which already have a rationale. It isn;t nice. At times I've had 50kb bot messages drilled at me ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ken Evoy

Hello Akradecki,

Regarding your note about "keyword" being around a lot longer than SiteSell, the person who entered that had noted that Dr. Evoy "popularized" it, not that he "invented" it. We did, however, suggest to ronz that it and "monetization" be edited out as it overspeaks the case. Dr. Evoy, did, however, invent and popularize the term "presell," as noted in our talk with ronz at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Regarding_SiteSell_Corporate_username

Our only contribution was to add early years' history to his biography, objective information. We contributed nothing of a promotional or spammy nature. Our openly-revealing username intentionally called out possible COI and a review of our edit should reveal that it was non-promotional. It was an intuitive., honest approach that was apparently not the right one. In any event, we'll stay out of wikepedia. Sorry for causing any consternation, we were merely trying to add helpful information when we became aware of this. Dr. Evoy is well known on the Web and we'll leave it to others to add information based on their research, as they like. We will not be back in any form, so please rest assured regarding possible COI. So regarding the COI designation, could you please remove it? And, on a side note, all the work you do for wikipedia is amazing! SiteSell Corporate 17:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Akradecki, Thank you for your note at our talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SiteSell_Corporate We're figuring this out slowly. And yes, we'll post any news articles of reference to Evoy talk or Sitesell talk page for others to do with as they like. That is an excellent suggestion, thank you. And thank you for your kind note about our transparency. In being so, and in contributing objective "early year" bio material, we've inadvertently raised the ire of a COI warning on Ken Evoy's bio, which looks terrible and gives the impression that SiteSell was trying to do something wrong. Are you able to remove that designation? How does one go about this? We don't want to go near that "live page" again -- but we will, per your suggestion, leave articles of value on the"talk pages." Should we also leave suggestions there, such as the comment about "popularizing" the term "preselling" (true) vs. "keywords/monetization" (these two keywords are overstated, which should be removed from the "live" page)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiteSell Corporate (talk • contribs) 15:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding article James Brooks

Hi Alan! This is your long lost student. I thought you may want to change (delete?!) two edits from the article: James Brooks. I would be happy to add documentations but not in this setting: 1. Second line in “Biography:” "crazy man to Jackson Pollock…" - it is an opinion without documentation therefore it has no place in an encyclopedia. 2. Last sentence in “Biography: ““What most people do not know is that he was a homosexual." This is not a gossip column. If I am not mistaken Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. James Brooks was a very important American abstract expressionist of the 1950s. Please help! Thank you very much. Sincerely, (Salmon1 17:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Need Typoon Help!!

Admin nlssmith has reverted half my edits. I believe it's because of the sock-puppet that you have been fighting. He wrote to you. "This is not going away. I have lots of subnets and lots of usernames".

Please look into the situation and ask nlssmith to restore my edits, or to name a specific factual reason why they should be removed. All I know is he calls them "controversial" when the only one complaining is the sock-puppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian future operators

Alan, got a problem that needs your admin expertise: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. They all use an Albanian language source, are hightly speculative, and have been reverted several times by User:GB-UK-BI. I've left a detailed explanation of my objection of the material, and BillZ has expressed his concerns in several edit summaries. THanks for checking this out. - BillCJ 02:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to change your sock again!

He's back, ornery as ever! This is his last of 3 contentious edits/reverts. And only 10:20 minutes after you lifted the block! I can't believe he actually waited a whole 10 hours! At this rate, he might actually start behaving in 532 years. :) - BillCJ 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And check this out. I do hope this is removed soon. - BillCJ 05:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I saw your intervent last day. Well, not be surprised, but i don't liked it. I warmly suggest to not lost my reply in the same page. I expect apologies for the slanders and the superficiality displayed, expecially about Saab 37 affair. Regards.--Stefanomencarelli 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the truth, maybe you should have thought twice about opening an ArbCom case against 2 diligent editors who tried hard to help you, and who you abused in the process. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal pics

Alan, you might be interested in this. The nominator may come after your "standing on your 412" pic next! THanks. - BillCJ 06:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WM2006 0060.jpg - Clever! - BillCJ 17:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WM2006 0060.jpg is a Commons image. -- RG ² 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you're right. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Your image and BQ's image are not. More admin abuse. Why not just let the IfD process take its course? ThreeE 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevent whether they're on WP or commons. There isn't a policy, that I've seen, that says such images must go to commons. I don't know what BQ has done to get on your radar, but if you have such concern for the image issues, why target him specifically, instead of someone not involved in Aggie issues? I would strongly suggest that you spend your editing time away from him, and I'll also suggest he spend his time away from areas where you're active. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly relevant, in that BQ's image can be nominated for deletion on Wikipedia, while Image:WM2006 0060.jpg cannot. -- RG ² 00:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course, that a commons image can't be nommed here. But methinks you miss my point: the nominator was only going after BQ's image, and though stating it was on process, the evidence is devoid of any glimmer of fairmindedness, and with the venom contained in the nom's statements in the other image's talk page, it seems clear that the nom was in spite. My point was intended to point out that if the nom had a higher purpose in cleaning up Wikipedia, why go solely after the image of the editor with whom he had contention? And yes, I'm fully aware that I screwed up the point I was attempting to make by not looking closer at Jimbo's pic and seeing that it was transcluded from Commons. Poor choice of example, but nonetheless, the point, I feel, is still valid. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What venom? ThreeE 05:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The venom contained in the fact that reasonable explanations have been provided to you, and yet you persist in such wikilawyering as to make multiple editors on the page question your good faith. You seem to be so adamant in your insistence that material is withdrawn or deleted, that you ignore that our guidelines are actually quite flexible on these points. Your views, quite simply, don't have the force of rule behind them as you think they do. In your arguments on the drum major image, your views are contrary to both the spirit and the letter of this policy, and yet you don't even attempt to give others the benefit of the doubt. If policy gives a "broad exception", so should you. When policy gives a broad exception, and you don't, and you don't respond with reconsideration when this is pointed out to you, it is natural then that people question your motives, especially given the history of disagreement on Aggies issues that you have had with BQ. And if you can't see the venom in what you've written there, if no venom was meant, maybe you should take a step back and consider how others see the tone and content of what you write. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, and I made that point even before you did. The image nomination was a pretty clear-cut error on his part, and I don't think anyone's argued against that, save for ThreeE himself and a few IP addresses and single-purpose accounts. But there's no need to keep making it that much more complicated or dramatic than it really is – something I've seen many of the participants in the BQZip01 vs. ThreeE showdown do, repeatedly, over the past few weeks.

And I just looked at your user page. Medevac? Kickass. -- RG ² 06:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing my talk page

I noticed you removed another editor's remarks from my talk page. Do not do this again. While I did not agree with the editor's opinion (and took no action) it is not your place to censor my talk page. The addition was not trolling in my opinion -- just a request to review. ThreeE 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all edits by a sockpuppet/troll are appropriate, especially when they are added as personal attacks and harrassments. I'm sure you weren't aware that they were such, because you haven't been involved in this on-going problem. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medium-lift helicopters

I didn't think a 25,000-28,000 lb MTOW was in the heavy-lift class. In fact, the 32,000 lb MTOW EH101 is classed as medium-lift on the that page. (And I don't believe I wrote that one!) Is there a definitve source/definition on weight classes? PS, Sikorsky refers to the S-92/H-92 as a "medium-lift helicopter" on its own website. No big deal, but also no need to edit war over it either. Oh, and I won't "slander" you if you feel my interpretation is in "herror" or needs "modifics". - BillCJ 22:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that's how Sikorsky referred to it. It may be that different manufacturers and sources rank things differently. Bell, for instance, considers the 412 and the 214 as medium lift. I'll have to dig further. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the term "Medium-lift" is pretty broad in terms of MTOW. I've seen sources other than Bell call the 212/412, 214, and 214ST medium-lift helicopters. I've also seen the SH-3/S-61, S-92, CH-46, Puma/Super Puma/Cougar, NH90, and EH101 referred to by the same terms. In fact, early-model CH-53s and CH-47s are sometimes called medium-lift, and so is the V-22 (VMM squadron designator- the last "M" is for Medium). I'd love to find a definitve source on the ranges for helicopter types. I might do some searching on R&W and a few other helicopter sites to see if any have covered the types/weight classes before. - BillCJ 06:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, NATO has a classification based on MGW of the aircraft, and it seems that the CAA may have some classifications, or at least the logging industry in Canada has some classifications based on payload:

Light-lift - < 10,000 lbs
Medium-lift - 10,000 lbs to 15,000 lbs
Heavy-lift - > 15,000 lbs

NATO's medium-lift category is less than 11,000 kg MGW/MTOW. That's all I could find so far. --Born2flie 06:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born, thanks for trying to find something for us. I do appreciate it. - BillCJ 07:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will see if Jane's has a reference for the classification. --Born2flie 07:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you got any Army friends in the Northern VA area who'd be willing to help Alan and I find some lost socks? - BillCJ 07:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born, thanks for that! If you can dig up a Canadian and NATO document reference, I'd suggest adding that classification scheme to the helicopter article.AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's just whether or not Anthony Appleyard will let me. --Born2flie 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as you don't include a Greek classification, he probably won't mind! AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we have problems over the format/style of the History section of that article as well. Pretty much, he has just decided that he isn't going to agree with me on anything. --Born2flie 16:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a page that discusses weight values, as the U.S. Army (specifically Army Aviation) sees the issue of type classification. --Born2flie 15:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Fire CE template

Hi there. The page Santiago Fire should have the Template:Current tag on the top of it, for it describes an ongoing fire in California which is still growing and information changes rapidly, as the template notes. I don't see why it was removed, as it is properly used. Happyme22 06:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for the template isn't just that it's about a current event, it's that there are "many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors" (quote from the template instructions). So far there, just two editors, hardly the traffic that requires the template. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Crash 8"

Alan, the recent Dash 8 crashes of the last week have caused the Incidents section in the de Havilland Canada Dash 8 article to grow again, including some non-notable incidents. I'd like to ask you to restore the deleted September 2007 Scandinavian Airlines Q400 incidents page. I plan on moving it to 2007 Dash 8 incidents or Dash 8 landing gear incidents, and proposing to merge Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748 and Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748 in. Both the crash articles still have minimal contnet, and overlap somewhat. As both crashes were not by any menas catastrophic, I think covering them on one page would be the best way to go. However, the overview incident article could remain whether or not the crashes are merged in. PS, if you'd rather not restore the deleted page, if you could copy out the content for me, that would work too. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, somehow some content on the talk page has been duplicated, tho I'm not sure how. aAlso, the page needs archiving, but I'm not certain how you do it, or I would help out. - BillCJ 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the dupe. - BillCJ 17:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done, User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Q400, with link also on your user page. I personally think that combining all these is the more encyclopedic approach, so I support your efforts. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll be proposing mergeing the two existing articles to the new one within a day or so, once the editing binge on the Dash 8 page has slowed down. - BillCJ 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me who the creator/primary editor was for the page? I'd like to solicit his help, since he did a good job putting it to gheter in the first place. - BillCJ 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Anyeverybody. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THanks. All the merge tags are up,a ndthe discussion in on the Dash 8 Talk page. - BillCJ 01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal slapping

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.3.18.198 - the diffs are self-explanatory! - BillCJ 01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seen this?

Alan, I just found this. It looks like something the Aviation Accident TF could take over managing, and perhaps expand to include more articles, if we wanted to do that. - BillCJ 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. - BillCJ 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What now?

Per this, what happens now? Having never been through an ARBCOM, I have no clue what to expect. It doesn't seem like he is leavibng en.Wiki, just the ARBCOM. I get the feeling he had no clue what really happens in the ARBCON, but expected a quick censure of BillZ and myself. He's demanded apologies at least twice, and seems put out we haven't responded, or been made to apologize. - BillCJ 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly he doesn't understand the gravity of bringing an ArbCom case, much less having a case actually accepted by the committee. As to what now? Nothing on our part. We just sit back and wait for the committee to do their thing. What really hurt Stefano's case is that he brought this case but in the evidence section failed to present, in an orderly way and backed by diffs, anything to back up his core accusations, that the rollbacks were improper. Oh well. I have a fair amount of faith in the committee members, and since a series of solutions have been presented, it's now up to them to discuss, and rule. Stay tuned! AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I was hoping it worked that way! - BillCJ 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Cobras

This is pretty interesting how the firefighting role the former AH-1s are doing. Looks like the USDA Forest Service's Firewatch Cobras are for scouting with the FLIR sensors. Florida is using theirs for dropping fire retardants (300+ gal). My 2004 warplanes book says the FS got 25 AH-1Fs and a Florida group got 3 AH-1Ps from the Army in the early 2000s. I looked through your Cobra links in your Sandbox 4 subpage, thanks. This seems worth more mention in the Cobra article, I think. -Fnlayson 01:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that they got so many...I think there's only 2 on the N registry, IIRC. Kern County was going to get 6 and build 2 out of them, and were going to mount belly tanks on them, but funding became an issue, and they opted for a second 205A++ instead, which is currently being built up. I really wish they'd gone for the Cobras, though! I agree more needs to be said in the article. I won't have a change to get to it for a while, so feel free to make use of any of the refs in my sandbox. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a paragraph on them. In 2004, they had converted 1 to Firewatch and another was in work according to this: Firewatch helicopter. Lack of funding like you say. -Fnlayson 05:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great article...I'm starting to think that a separate article could be done on the FIREWATCH program as a part of the aerial firefighting series of articles. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Merrill

Alan, what needs to be done in [[5]] which was identified by a bot as missing some fair use information. I thought everything was in place, FWIW Bzuk 04:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fill out the Fair Use template I added to the image page. You should able to justify use of a cover image without much trouble. It does not affect sale of the item (movie, album, etc). -Fnlayson 04:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice template...hadn't seen that one before. What's the actual template name? Does it need to be subst'd? AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't know. One of the image licensing pages (like WP:NFURG?) said to just copy & paste it. I just copy & paste it from an previous use. -Fnlayson 04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurofighter Typhoon

I appreciate your help and calm responses to the Typhoon article. I've never before seen such emotion with respect to an article before, even in automobile articles (and automobile enthusiasts love their cars!) Do you know of a good way to solve such conflicts, or is talking it out like is being done now in Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon the best / only way? Nicholas SL Smith 05:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to IPs, there really isn't anything that can be done other than revert trollism and ignore them as much a possible. With registered users, talking is the best answer, but at the same time, making sure the talk on the discussion page centers around improving the article and its sources, as opposed to a which-airplane-is-better forum. Also key is focusing on what external sources, and reliable ones at that, say, not what individual editors' opinions are. Keeping the dicussion focused on where our guidelines says it should be focused really is the best way, but I certainly agree, it can be frustrating at times! AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll just try to stick with it and keep calm - Nicholas SL Smith 03:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. user:GB-UK-BI

user:GB-UK-BI is a socketpup of indef blocked vandal user:gon4z. He has a vast record of inserting unsourced nationalistic pro-Albanian propaganda and/or anti-Serbian claims into articles - especially regarding Kosovo and Albanian military forces. As sock of a blocked user I reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - in case you come across other socks of Gon4z - revert his edits and report the suspected sock to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. best regards, --noclador 23:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful for folks like me who are not familiar with the situation if you could provide some documentation showing why you suspect one to be the sock of the other. I'm not doubting you, but I also don't want to just assume. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I could go and look through all the edits of his socks - but maybe it is enough to explain to you why I'm sure this is a sock:

some of the articles edited are the same: MIM-23 Hawk, Kosovo, Albanian Air Force. Especially his continuous claim that Albania does operate the MIM-23 Hawk is an indicator that this is the same person, as he is the only one to "know" about this.
he has stopped to insert his claims in the articles of the Albanian military that Albania will buy hundreds of new tanks and other weapons in the near future. Obviously he has learned that nowadays a group of users keeps a very close eye on these articles. But after reading this: "with other aircraft like surplus Turkish F-4s, F-5s, AH-1, UH-1H, and hundreds of other weapons for Albanian ground forces." I was sure that he is the same.
another point is that he like Gon4z uses to "source" his edits by either pointing to a site that seems legitimate but does not mention what he wants to source: i.e. pointing to the homepage of the Albanian Air Force to legitimate his claims that Albania will get 24 Agusta A129 Mangusta helicopters, whn the homepage doesn't even mention this type of helicopter or by giving a source in a language that isn't English (once even in Tagalog). Also he likes to use his own forum postings at some obscure Albanian military forum he administers as source.
than there is his ignoring discussions on his talkpage and instead arguing through the edit summaries. plus the insults he often includes there.
another point is the uploading of images from all over the place and than claiming to be the copyright holder.
than there is his habit of removing all discussion from his talkpage that paint him in a negative light i.e. like this
not to forget his love for edit warring

to make it short - it is definitely user:Gon4z here is a discussion about him Gon4z vandalism. Although I'm sure it is him and should be blocked immediately, we can wait until tomorrow, because you can be sure that every edit of his that gets unnoticed will embolden him and soon he will wreak havoc again and/or start insulting me and you for posting something on this talkpage. --noclador 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. While it looks like there'a a high probability that that one is the other, I can't see anything from what you've offered that provides conclusive confirmation. You mentioned the MIM-23, but I went through the history and Gon4z didn't edit it at all. I'll keep an eye on things, though. I've deleted two images he uploaded as they were clear copyvios. If he does any more of that, it could lead to escalating warnings and a block. Stay tuned. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gon4z has never edited military hardware articles, but inserted his claims always into the articles about the Albanian military. Only after he realized that these articles are checked regularly for his edits did he start to edit the military hardware articles and he used socks to do so: example 1, example 2, example 3.

I'm also sure that User:82.35.33.72 is a sock of user:Gon4z - evidenced by this two edits: edit 1 and edit 2 and by the usual insertion of fabricated claims of Albanian military hardware use or removal of Serbian military hardware use. --noclador 09:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photos come from here and have no licensing copyrights. http://www.bmlv.gv.at/archiv/a2007/longbow_lancer/galerie_uebersicht.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by GB-UK-BI (talk • contribs) 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only Image:Colr07-0014-022.jpg is from the above link and that does not give you the right to license them as if you were the copyright holder! You are not - this is the correct copyright holder and the license he demands be given to the image:

"Austrian Armed Forces (2007)Directorate of Press and Public Information/MoD. This image is cleared for release. Request credit be given as "Austrian Armed Forces Photograph". Please note, that it is forbidden to trade the image."

And Gon4z - stop re-uploading the deleted image as i.e. Image:1244126.jpg --noclador 00:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another copyvio of Gon4z or user:GB-UK-BI the original and his version with him the copyright owner: Image:KPC GENERAL STRUCTURE.jpg

and by the way - he took to insulting me again: "can you stop accusing me of being Gon4z you already got my IP blocked for a week coupe weeks ago for the same reason why are you so paranoid and accuse every one of being some one, also why are you trying to maintaining so hard a dictatorship over wikipedia articles" --noclador 01:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've written him a detailed explanation about copyrights. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he didn't know. However, if he continues this, that's a different matter. As for the sock accusations, while you make a good case, you haven't shown me definitive proof. I know you'll be keeping an eye on things, as will I, but you really need to back off on the comments to him, and please, for now, stop calling him gon4z. Any more than what you've said could be construed as harrassment on your part, and I don't want to see you caught up in that. If there are problem edits in the future, we'll deal with them than, but for now, it would be best to back off a bit. Oh, and thanks for the source on the graphic. It has now been deleted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I will back off for now, but I asure you this is Gon4z. Even a DNS check of his IP returns the same location (London, UK) and even the same ISP as Gon4z. Well, he will go on with his behavior and you will see. Btw. Gon4z definitely knows about the copyright issue - he and his socks have been told dozens of times about it, but he just does it anyway. Here are some of the images uploaded by him under other socks (all again with him as "copyright holder"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Klass
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Gon4z
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Jackoff321 here there are some images that he claims to be his own, but I really doubt that. I could not find the url yet were he took them. --noclador 02:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration. Keep an eye out, and keep me posted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-22/F-15 Transformers

Alan, we got a new crufter making trouble oin the F-15 and F-22 pages, including threatening to have people banned for reverting his edits. Can you take a look? I haven't spoken to him directly yet, as I don't believe I can remain civil. I have asked him to discuss his edits in my revert summaries, but he just keeps reverting, Thanks. - BillCJ 04:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It's seriously time for WP:AIR to come up with some clear cut guidelines on trivia sections. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please fill up the Popular Culture sections faster in the jet articles? Its quite boring with only a few articles. Also AssaultHead is now famous everywhere on the Wikia Projects.(TougHHead 05:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think you understand...pop culture sections are discouraged in aircraft articles. We only include genuinely notable appearances, like Top Gun for the F-14 and Flight of the Phoenix for the C-119 and C-82. In other words, to be included, the appearance should be a main part of the story, not just a brief view. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Harbor Capital

According to page 145 of the 2007 Production List, Pacific Harbor Capital only registered two Hercules - c.n.s 3095 and 3145, both of which are already in your sandbox.

Sub*

Mark Sublette 05:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 05:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Herc operators

The short version:

Aero Union - c.n.s 3104, 3119, 3138, 3148 and 3227

Hemet Valley - c.n.s 3092, 3104, 3119, 3138, 3142, 3143, 3146, 3148, 3149 and 3227

TBM Inc., Tulare, California - c.n.s 3026, 3081, 3173 and 3186

T&G Aviation, Arizona - c.n.s 3018, 3086, 3095, 3104, 3119, 3145, 3219, 3224 and 3227

I go out on the train in about 14 hours, so I'll try to flesh out the histories when I return. But for the moment, here are the usual suspects.

Sub*

Mark Sublette 05:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 05:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks...I found out today that TBM's DC-7s are now with Butler Aircraft, so I need to flesh out what happened to the 130s. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that several passed through multiple companies - 3104, 3119 and 3227, in particular!

Sub*

Yeah, that aspect alone led to allegations that the ownerships were being "fuzzied" so that the aircraft could be used for covert ops. So, far, only allegations, and I've not seen any real convincing data, but it does raise some eyebrows! AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback for camber (aerodynamics)

Hi, I saw you'd edited an article here and there on Aerospace Engineering stuff, and I wanted to solicit some feedback on camber (aerodynamics). I added the Definition section, including the image. I'd appreciate any input you have. User:!jim^talk _contribs 08:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircontent and Airlistbox

Alan, User:Vegaswikian has unilaterally removed the Airlistbox portion from the AIrcontent footer template here. I asked for discussion in my first revert, but he has not responded, and today he removed it again. Maybe he'll discuss it if an admin asks him to. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More from Stefano

Errr.

Claiming 'unknown source' a thing i referred to be Goebel work is just funny. If you ignore the segnalation made by me about a work *already discussed and found not illegal*, then not be surprised if i protest for the rollback. Use common sense could help, or not? Moreover, who deleted it was not worried about copyv, he knew it wasn't.

Claiming that this policy allows to 'delete unsourced datas' it's again a fantasy interpretation.

You, in wikipedia, are not obliged to do nothing, go figure in 10 minuts. This is a real, old, silly history. Examples?

Rodney King-Mike Tyson-O.J. Simson (really funny how racial insults are seen while it was obvious the meaning was not this. It's just the confirm how there is the tendence to see the finger instead to the Moon).

All these cases happened in early '90s, and all these showed how 'objectivity' in law is a false word, expecially if there are 'differences' in race, etnic, religion and above all, wealth. Hardly wiki-policies allows more 'sureness' than Law, and makes impossible to do mistakes or overreactings. And people in Internet are still the same that makes mistakes or abuses in the real world.

So, please, don't tell me that 'policy allows...'. Nope, if a policy/rule/law was enough, now O.J Simson should be executed just like happened to Tookie Williams and many others. But he was rich, nice and almost-white, right?

2-This stuff about Goebel site was already discussed.

I gave the notion that where it came from, and cronology is not there to be ignored. If someone ignore the note about, it's guilth of him and it should be vandalism. It should be, but not with my case.

Don't tell me that you cannot imagine how i can be happy to be: rollbacked when i write something, because i write bad. Rollbacked when i just put data, because they are 'unsourced'. Rollbacked when i post a PD data, because 'it's probable copyviol' and so on. C'mon, you know what i mean. It's a burocratic form of Mobbing.

Moreover: the fact you gave the 'cases' was not the problem: you gave also the judgemnts about them, so what kind of 'favour' you did? Not surely for me.--Stefanomencarelli 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano,

go look at the diff - do you see anywhere in the text that you put a reference? You have to cite your sources. Period. End of story. You failed to do this, so it got removed.
What the heck is "segnalation"? That's not an English word.
Claiming that this policy allows to 'delete unsourced datas' it's again a fantasy interpretation. This is not a fantasy interpretation, it's the basic policy. In the first paragraph of WP:V it reads, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." (bolding for emphasis).
Don't complain about being unhappey when being rolled back. Many, many editors have tried to give you positive, constructive advice on how to edit so that you don't get rolled back, but all you do is ignore their good advice and whine about things. When are you going to realize that these editors aren't against you, they're trying to help you while keeping the quality of the articles up? AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1-I have written in the cronology that this text was from Goebel, not in the text itself. I repeat that this was not deleted for copyviol, but for other reasons, that you are supporting with blind assertions about what's need to do in every case.

2-'May' IS not 'must'. Just homicide is not 'death to the murder' synonimous. Apparently, you have problems with words. IF the policy says: or it may be removed this still not means 'must be removed'. This is the policy, not stalinist sentences. And i am still wonder how 'fast' someone is to use policies while i edit someting. Don't kidding me, you should know what this means.

3-Many editors? I am talking about TWO editors: Bill and Bzuk. While the latter was a bit constructive, the first did absolutly nothing to make things more friendly. If all the editors, poor them, in relation with me are pitlessy attacked and destroyed so tell me, why RS or others had no remarkable problems with me? The doubt that Bzuk and Bill have taken the thing in the wrong direction not appliate to your mind?

4-As for 'constructives'. There is a third, blatalanty one, that nobody cares to warn in any manner. Obviously you don't find nothing strange with User EH101 contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EH101.

He is in wiki.en just to attack me, but this is not a problem, right? He is a nice guy and nobody asks to him why his only wiki-interest is, since 10 days to now, to shxtting me in several pages, while i never search him first. So really, who can speaks seriously about the 'obligatory actions' in wiki.en?--Stefanomencarelli 21:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make this clear:

2006/12 88 edits,
2007/1 15
2007/2 9
2007/3 7
2007/4 5
2007/5 1
2007/6 3
2007/7 7
2007/8 2
2007/9 24
2007/10 52

Who can explain why this guy had reneweed his intersest for wiki.en this two months? In two months has made 76 edits, while in the earlier six made 36. Even a blind can see this thing. Maybe because he aims to provocke and damage me? Perhaps Policies don't forbid this, but still it's a really strange manner to 'be constructive'. Or perhaps, he is welcomed, because has better english and above all, he is interested to make damages to me?--Stefanomencarelli 21:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano, before you go accusing other users of misbehavior, you need to really check you facts. User:EH101 has been here since December 30, 2006 (see [6], you have only been here since July 24, 2007 (see [7]. He was here a full 7 months before you showed up, so don't go accusing him of "being in wiki just to attack you". And you're right, he hasn't made a lot of edits, but if you look over his history, you'll see that he's been doing what you should have been doing: starting slowly, learning his way around here, recognizing that his English requires care in editing, joining projects and asking for help. This is how its supposed to be done, and you could take a lesson from his methods. These are yet another example of you being uncivil and making false accusations. After this incivility, and the racial slurs you included in your post here earlier today, the only reason that you haven't received a civility block is that I want you to be able to continue discussing the ArbCom case. And yes, "may" is not necessarily "must", but it is permitted by policy, and it's not a fantasy interpretation like you described it. Stefano, your best course of action right now is to calm down, stop writing uncivil comments, stop accusing others, and recognize your limitations and start heeding the adivce of those who've been trying to help you. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanomencarelli forgot to mention he declared publicly twice his intention to "counterattack and devastate" an en.wiki page in a it.wiki talk page at the beginning of September. As I have done thousands of edits on it.wiki by translating en.wiki pages, I was quite concerned for english articles reliability after those statements. According to him, I should have belt up when I saw his plans. Anyway, dear Akradecki, if you need a new car, please call me according to this very new nice insulting stefanomencarelli's post [8]. Bye --EH101 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the it.wiki page where he made that threat would be helpful. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akra dear, first i am amused by your accusation TOTALLY out of context about razist slurs. This is absolutely false, because i explained what's the problem was. Perhaps you must read better, among your many evaluation errors, what i wrote and why. If not, this is another example of slander.

And you're right, he hasn't made a lot of edits, but if you look over his history, you'll see that he's been doing what you should have been doing: starting slowly, learning his way around here, recognizing that his English requires care in editing, joining projects and asking for help. This is how its supposed to be done, and you could take a lesson from his methods. These are yet another example of you being uncivil and making false accusations.

Second, if you are arguing that EH101 is acting correctly you must also see WHERE he is continously editing. If you cannot discriminate why he made 90 edits one year ago and now is revamping his interest just to cross CASUALLY (with 5 millions articles) continously my activity, you delude me even more. It's really umbelievable how you can't see the bad faith of him in editing searching continously to provocke me and after, ran to cry in ARBCOM.

The last ,laugable is that out of 3,000 characters in a post in which his (quite uncorrect) points were demolished one after the other, he, so poor guy, is felt 'offensed' because i noticed a similarity in language with car-seller, at best readable in hironical sense. Seen this profession is nothing offensive to everyone, i fail to understand what kind of policy is violated. I did not called him thief, after all, or similar.

But obvious, he need a 'cause of desease', he just pointed to this single phrase. Perhaps he had not other arguments?

And allow me, you are not in the position to point how i must learn from EH101, since i know him far more and better than you. Don't forget he was one of the main causes of my ropture in wiki.it, and there as well he made continuous provocations to make me troubles. And instead to be enough satisfied, he cames here to strike again. Do you have a clue what i think about? How can you not understand even this?

Third, MAY is not MUST. IF someone want to persecute me, with any metods, with any hinstruments, he will do. But what's the point? Rollbacks in any case is a clear example of civility in wiki?

Fourth, i have enough of EH101 continously diffamations. Yes, in Wiki i explained that after a first time my F-14 contr. were deleted, i returned and posed a more consistent and troublesome contribution. And by that? Do you see how EH101 is placed to attack me with all he can? And you fall in his trap. And i as well, because i lost time and reputation to answer to him.

Yes, vain words. There is not worse deaf to who don't want to hear.--Stefanomencarelli 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, Stafano, always the victim, eh? You got indef banned from it.wiki and it was everyone else's problem not yours. Gee, you're Italian, he's Italian, you both write about aircraft and military issues...can't for the life of me see why you'd cross paths. And Stefano, please stop threatening to quit or leave? You've done it so many times, but haven't followed through, that you're not believable any more on that. And finally, Stefano, you have spoken well above. There is not worse deaf to who don't want to hear. As one who has tried to help you and been rebuffed because you don't want to hear about your own problems, those words certainly ring true. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here there are for your info links to statements posted on it.wiki by stefanomencarelli at the beginning of september.

First here [9] Stefanomencarelli wrote:

it:Poi su wiki.en chiedono referenze su ogni quisquiglia, meno male che ho finito i Savoia-Marchetti prima di esplodere (passando poi al contrattacco e devastandogli l'F-14 Tomcat:))). 23:54, 2 set 2007

en:Then on wiki.en they ask for citation even for any small thing, thanks goodness I finished Savoia-Marchetti before to explode (passing after to counterattack and devastating them the F-14 Tomcat) September 2nd, 2007 23:54

The day after he wrote [10]

it:Sul mio passato recente, ho provato per un mesetto wiki.en. L'ambiente è molto selettivo, non gli frega nulla dei link, ma pretendono citazioni necessarie su tutto. Ho incontrato dei censori anche peggiori di qui, ho preso due blocchi ma anche una medaglia di bronzo per il lavoro che ho fatto con gli aereoplani italiani, che hanno fatto dire a molti 'Hooooh'. Ho fatto la filiera S.M. inspirato alle mie iniziali, adesso lo Sparviero ha 52 kb con tutto il materiale che mi è stato possibile reperire in tutte le mie riviste. Mi hanno bloccato tre giorni dopo che ho piazzato 6kb di descrizione tecnica sull'F-14 (ovviamente iperprotetta e in appalto a soli americani), subito cancellata (giusto come fecero quando postai come inizio, 20kb sul Macchi 202,disintegrati all'istante!). Ovviamente ho protestato, e mi sono beccato tre giorni da un altro admin, ho chiesto appello (là si può) e me l'hanno respinto. Poi sono tornato sulla pagina dell'F-14 e visto che mi avevano cancellato 6kb ne ho piazzati 16, più un disegno tecnico artigianale. Poveracci, stanno ancora correggendo, però ora la voce è molto migliore di prima. Hasta la pista.--Stefanomencarelli 17:16, 3 set 2007

en:Relevant to my recent time, I tried for about a month wiki.en. The environment is very selective, they don’t care about wikilink, but they strongly ask for citation on everything. I met some censors even worse than here, I took two blocks, but a bronze medal too, appointed for my work with Italian airplanes which made lots of people say 'Hooooh'. I did the S.M. weaving factory (tr. Note: complete list) being inspired by my initials and now the Sparviero has 52kb with all material I was able to find on my magazines. They blocked me for three days after I posted a 6kb technical description on F-14 (obviously hyper-protected and assigned to Americans only), immediately deleted (like they did when I posted as a beginning, 20 kb on Macchi 202, disintegrated at a glance!). Obviously I complained and I got three more days from another admin, I appealed (there it is possible) and they rejected. Then I went back on F-14 page and as I saw they deleted my 6kb I posted 16, plus a hand-crafted technical drawing. Poor guys, they are still correcting, but now the article is much better then before. Hasta la pista. --Stefanomencarelli September 3rd, 2007 17:16

I promptly gave a warning to a very active wikipedian, who is an Italian native speaker too, ->here<-. Stefanomencarelli found the post and tried to cancel it twice (yes, he deleted twice a post in another user's talk page). I rollbacked twice, after that he started to utter threats and attacks to me. At the moment, I see he is still playing with the "poor guys" (as he calls them) in Talk:F-14 Tomcat who are puzzled by article's status. --EH101 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Wave selling and Wave-selling

Google reveals two articles Wave selling and Wave-selling with same contents. I tagged speedy deletion tag but user is removing it by logging out and using anonymous IP address. These articles seems blatant advertise of own website. Please check data and do the needful. Thanks. TRIRASH 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're gone now. Feel free to let me know if they reappear! AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asams10

Hi Alan. Sorry to trouble you but I thought I would seek your input at the discussion here. I have argued that having a U.S. flag icon as well as the country link to United States is superfluous in the infobox of for example M16 rifle, per WP:MOSFLAG. It's a fairly minor stylistic issue but I am concerned at the behaviour of User:Asams10 in twice deleting my (fairly civil) advice to him, and in calling me a 'pill'. I don't know what that is but it sounds bad. Please take an uninvolved look and do what you can. Best wishes, --John 02:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but I have to agree with the observation of sometimes testy and "short fuse" commentary. See: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [[34]. And all of this is just from the edit comments alone. Whattzup? FWIW Bzuk 05:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

John, looks like you posted just about the time I was getting off and going to bed. Hope the delay in responding hasn't been a problem. Will go take a look. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looked and commented. And, as for the "pill" comment...flashback time! My mom used to use that term, it generally was used (by here at least) for someone who was clearly bitter. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. Per Bzuk's diffs this chap may be worth keeping a good eye on; he doesn't seem to clearly understand what 'reverting' means in a Wikipedia context, as in spite of all his statements I had never reverted the articles in question (though I have now). He may need continued guidance in Wikiquette if my encounter with him was anything to go by. Best wishes, --John 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we go again. I certainly won't edit-war over such a minor and silly thing, but these reversions do look a little pointy and the user has asked me not to post on their user talk page. If you could find time to help educate this user in the way of the Wiki, I'd be very grateful. Best wishes, --John 17:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped a note on his page. Looking over his history, he violated 3RR a few days ago, so it's definitely worth keeping an eye on things. I'm off to work, so will be off the grid for a couple of hours. Will check in later. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching Asams10's edits for at least a couple of months, and some do tend to be over-aggresive or questionable. On the other hand, I believe he has made several good contributions. I think he shows potential, much more than our Sock friends or the one from the Boot country. With patient guidance, he may be able to be very productive here, but that depends on how willing he is to learn and adapt. - BillCJ 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent)Thanks, both. I agree with Bill that this user shows the potential to be a useful contributor. Working harmoniously with others is non-negotiable here though. If he can master that, there is no reason he cannot be a productive editor. I think he will definitely require monitoring though. --John 17:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a sad thing when the mop becomes a billy club. You state that working harmoniously is non-negotiable but you are rigid on removing one single flag to an article you are not familiar with but leave 30 plus flags (all the same) on an article you edit often (sort of a conflict of interest). So where is the harmony? I would like to see this issue diffused but making statements of watching an editor or other treats is basically using the mop as a billy club. Just an observation here as there must be another way to resolve this issue. --I already forgot 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akradecki, is there more to this issue/user(Asam10) that I'm not aware of?--I already forgot 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, above, when you said that it's sad when a mop becomes a billy club. I'm actually quite distressed at the overall mood that a lot of editors are displaying, the basic approach of "I'm going to do it my way, regardless of what anyone else says." If it escalates to requiring admin involvement, suddenly admin abuse is screamed. As for the immediate issue, I really don't care one way or the other on the actual issue, what I care about is that people realize that this whole thing (meaning WP) is supposed to be consensus-driven. With respect to the larger picture, MOS is an expression of consensus view that has been crafted over time and that's intended to produce a uniform product. When one editor thinks that his personal opinion of what looks good is more valid than everyone else's, we have a breakdown in the foundation of how we're supposed to operate. That's the core issue in this particular dispute. An issue was raised and is being discussed. That's all well and good, but Asam10 takes it upon himself to act before consensus is reached, based on what he thinks looks good, and, when I last checked in on the discussion, his justification was solely his own opinion rather than a reference to guidelines. Looking over his edit history, he's done a lot of great work fighting vandalism, but he can be quite ferocious at times. On the 25th he clearly violated 3RR (though no one noticed) over something that was a content issue rather than a vandalism issue. I guess, to use your analogy, it's also sad when an editor's power to revert becomes a billyclub over other editors. I think the main problem is the overagreesiveness that simply isn't warranted. If everyone would honor WP:CONSENSUS and the basic edit>revert>discuss (and not continue to edit war while the discussion was on-going) flow, things would work much better. Everyone needs to recognize that there are certain hot-button topics around here, and as minor as it seems, flag icons is one of those hot-button topics. That's where a guideline like MOS is so valuable...it provides a standard of consistency so that we can all march in the same direction. Sometimes, with hot-button topics in a consensus-driven society, one has to put personal preferences aside and recognize that even if we don't like it, a standard has been decided upon by the community and needs to be followed. The problems arise when, with such hot-button issues, certain editors can't put there personal views aside, and so edit based on the opinion that their view is more valid than the community's. It was my intent in the discussion to try to focus things on whether or not the inclusion of flags in the particular location met the spirit of the MOS. What was frustrating was that Asam10 was refusing to discuss in those terms, insisting that he didn't have to justify his edits. When an editor refuses to discuss his edits with respect to the overall style guidance, discussion then becomes a battle of opinion rather than an attempt to conform this encyclopedia to a guide. And with that, I think I've rambled far to long over this. I hope, however, that I've at least somewhat answered your question. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, did you know that the editor in question has applied unsuccessfully for admin status? FWIW Bzuk 13:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Suspiscious?

Alan, could look at this diff, and run a WHOIS on the IP? Interesting huh? - BillCJ 06:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...if it is him, I'm disappointed...I thought he was more knowledgeable on aviation than than. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THis user does seem to use a very familiar style. has some history, but not much. Worth watching perhaps. - BillCJ 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cat's Pajamas

If I am popular or my product is popular, even noted by TV channels but no one has written article about me or my product. Can I write wikipedia article about myself or my product?

This question bothered me when I tagged speedy deletion tag on The Cat's Pajamas. Hope you will answer my query. I don't want to tag articles which deserve main namespace on wikipedia. Thanks. TRIRASH 13:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! In short, you're not supposed to, but you're not completely forbidden from doing so. To be successful at it, you'd have to write in a very independent voice and only cite outside sources. Most people can't bring themselves to do it. I think I could probably pull it off, just because I've had a lot of writing experience, but I personally think it's "bad form", so when the very scenario came to light to me, the lack of an article on Air Methods, who just happens to be my employer, I felt it best to abstain from any editorial content, although I did discuss the article with the editor who was writing it. That kind of involvement is generally acceptable, because "insiders" usually have knowledge of sources, and can point in the right direction. As for the band you refer to, I speedied, and then noted that I was the 4th person to do so, so I salted the title (that's protecting it so it can't be recreated).

Also, since you're so aptly going after spam, you might find a template that I created helpful. It is User:Akradecki/coinote, and when used you'd enter it on a talk page like this: {{subst:User:Akradecki/coinote|article name, if applicable}}. Hope this helps, and keep up the great work! AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HEY! I know your helicopter! Without going into detail, I've been next to that sucker as it landed at the "rock pile" (lucerne valley) many times. Thanks for keeping that sucker running right! --I already forgot 17:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you were only next to it, and not in it!! AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I've helped to bring them in and ship them out. You must be busy as I've seen that thing suck so much dust and dirt it's had to kill a turbine blade or two. --I already forgot 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All over world, colleges post bio of professors but we do not allow to create article if that professor is not 'notable'. But all over world we find news about thousands of criminals. My question is, does criminals deserve main namespace on wikipedia only because for reporters criminals are notable and their names appear in some newspaper? If yes, then it is unfortunate that people like professors, engineers, pilots etc who help to build better world do not deserve main namespace on wikipedia but even small criminal deserve because they were 'noted' by some 'independent' news media. This question arised because I have seen articles about criminals. I just saw Ivan Čuček. Thanks. TRIRASH 12:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Département de défense

Alan (and John if interested), please see Département de défense, which has been PRODed. Perhaps an CSD or instant delete is more appropriate. User:Caveman 07 has a history of VERY questionable edits. While I admit there is a grain of truth and humor in the Département de défense, it's does not in any wway belong here. (Uncyclopedia, perhaps, but not here!) - BillCJ 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it as I agree it was unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia. --John 18:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! - BillCJ 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crufter

Alan, User:TougHHead has been active for the last few weeks, especially in Pop culture sections. He's getting a bit aggressive at enforcing his views, per this diff, the third or fourth today ont he F-22 page. Thanks for anything that can be done. - BillCJ 00:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been looking into his activities. I'm guessing about 6th grade, a real transformers fan. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. I dropped a friendly message on his talk page. - BillCJ 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, he has now gone to straight vandalism. Warning issued. - BillCJ 19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD question

Alan, article N987SA was created on Oct. 31. I know a number of N-number articles on supposed rendition/CIA aircraft were deleted several months back, and merged into Rendition aircraft. This one seems even less notable than those, as it crashed after being sold. The article seems to imply that it was carrying cocaine for the US government, if one doesn't read it carefully. Also, there are no inline citations, though there are (somewhat dubious) references at the bottom ont eh very short text. I'd CSD or PROD it, but it's late, and I don't have time tonight to go though the reasons lists to find the applicable ones. - BillCJ 08:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N987SA, which was speedy-kept by user:Victor falk after NO discussion whatsoever. The user has no indiocation on his userspace that he is an admin, and as such, is not allowed to speedy-keep before 5 days, to my knowledge. - BillCJ 08:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the history, the nom actually did the speedy keep. Not quite correct per process, but essentially a nom withdrawl. Given the multiple reliable sources, it could be argued to be notable (though I personally wouldn't), but as I hate N numbered article names, and since there is name guidance for crashes, I've moved the page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed it with one of the editors (User:Victor falk), and he agreed with merging in with Rendition aircraft. I see you've moved the page to 2007 Yucatan Gulfstream crash, which is OK. Looks to me like any claim of notability is with the so-called Rendition missions, not the crash, which occured after the aircraft was sold. As the crash does not appear notble on its own, I went ahead with proposing the merge. If you disagree, that's fine - I'll defer to your judgment. - BillCJ 03:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes more sense to have it as a part of the rendition article, but it's not high on my battle-choosing list. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-86 Sabre specifications

As you and I surmised, when the information from a verifiable and authoritative source was located, it varied appreciably from other sources which in many cases, such as internet articles, had been inaccurate. I consider the Baugher references to be very valuable as they are a compilation of various sources but in some instances, the original material may be suspect. Check out the specifications table for the F-86F-40-NA in the F-86 Sabre article and it now corresponds to the published charts from the Standard Aircraft Characteristics (S.A.C.) charts prepared by the U.S. Air Force and North American Aviation NA54-389 (revised 1 May 1957) provided in Wagner's landmark work, The North American Sabre (1963). Now even with these figures, it appears that the most capable F-86 variant is the (tadah!) Canadair Sabre Mk 6 with a maximum speed of 710 mph at sea level. You know I couldn't resist making a statement about our Canadian technology superiority! FWIW Bzuk 13:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If I get a chance, I'll go down to the other end of the field and see if my friend's F-86 (which is really a Canadian one, as well) has an AFM or equivalent...at least we can get official numbers for one of the models! AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, see: [35] which was apparently the reason why the whole arb-thingie was begun in the first place. If you look at the edit history and the talk page record, it's clear that the issue was about a content question and needed to be resolved as to which F-86F block series was most representative and which reference source was the most reliable. A WP:Panic scenario was not really needed as the discussion indicated that sources seemed to vary and one reliable source should be the best solution, which was eventually determined to have exact data related to the manufacturer and operator's documentation. So the whole shmozola was about a misunderstanding (again). FWIW Bzuk 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

New article

Just found this article, US Aircraft A-67 Dragon. Is't not bad, and seems to cite some outside sources. Definitely needs wikifying tho, if it's keepable. - BillCJ 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC) US Aircraft A-67 Dragon[reply]

Unfortunately, it was also entirely a copyvio, lefted from http://www.airshowcat.com/exh_details.aspx?exh=749 and so I've had to delete it. Wouldn't mind seeing a "real" article written, though. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. If you could copy the links my talk page, and I'll see what I can do. - BillCJ 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff saved it before it was deleted. He's already done some work on it! - BillCJ 03:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seem familiar

[Seen this one?] - BillCJ 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, suspicious name. I reverted with a note to achieve consensus before removing entire paragraphs. Looks like it'll be another lively day. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be arbitrarily reverting Eurofighter

Your recent reverts appear to be arbitrary. On the one hand you tell me to seek consensus when reverting an omission that cyrilledunant unilaterally made without any talk or consensus. When I went to revert it the first time you reverted me and said to seek consensus on the talk page. How strange. How is it that he can make a change without consensus but I cannot revert it without it? Don't you think that in order to maintain credibility you must consistently apply your fiats.Williewikka 18:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Cyrilledunant removed two links. That's a normal edit. You removed 1 1/2 paragraphs, including a reference, and your edit summary clearly indicated that you did it to make a point. Because it was a removal of referenced information, and because it was to make a point, it was reverted. Our process is edit>revert>discuss. You're at the discuss point right now...so go discuss, if you feel that there's a legitimate reason to remove that material. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, you missed the original change he made this "Although these measures reduce the radar cross section of the Typhoon, the Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft like F-117 or the F-22." was removed by him. This should be put back in since no one discussed it and he unilaterally made the change. You and John just did a knee jerk reaction without reading what was going on. That sentence, by your rules should be put back in there and not removed without debate and consensus. Williewikka 18:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) he didn't remvoed the entire sentence, just the two aircraft links, and b) if you had just left it at reverting that bit of information, there wouldn't have been a problem. The problem came up when you decided to get vindictive and revert whole paragraphs plus refs. Now go discuss your issues on the talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is you who appear to be vindictive and I don't know why. It had nothing to do with links and everything with the content of the paragraph. I would suggest you examine in chronological order the following three entries:

15:08, 2 November 2007 Williewikka (Talk | contribs) (47,420 bytes) (It very much is useful. Its sets context. Please do not revert without consensus.) (undo)

(cur) (last) 06:53, 2 November 2007 CyrilleDunant (Talk | contribs) m (47,388 bytes) (comparison not useful.) (undo)

(cur) (last) 20:14, 1 November 2007 HDP (Talk | contribs) m (47,420 bytes) (→Radar Signature Reduction Features - Ref) (undo)

I did revert and he then reverted back. I then agreedto what he was trying to do and removed all comparisons in the section. I don;t see that as vindictive, merely willing to work with the other editor. Anyway, it's moot. Change it or not if you like. I don;t have time for this or arbitrary people who do not take the time to see what is happening. Good day.Williewikka 19:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet has been indef blocked. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another series of attacks

See: [36]; [37] [38]. It seems to be the very same user. The following anons are involved: 70.107.168.47 and 162.84.185.35. FWIW Bzuk 10:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is, and it's the one who hit the Stefano ARBCOM page too. For all our supposed unimportance, it sure spends alot of time following us around. Kind of reminds me of the little brother who says he hates being around you and your friends, but everywhere you go, there he is, following after you like a lost puppy. A pup named dufus, it would seem. - BillCJ 07:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I learned something...I guess Stefano shouldn't be editing the F-86 article, since as that plane's designer it would be COI! AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article - Race and intelligence/backgound

Please check Race and intelligence/backgound and talk page of this article, my talk page. Other article Race and intelligence already exist. Hence I tagged new page created by user for speedy deletion. On my talk page, user said that he has created new page as something like sandbox project. I don't understand this. I suspect that Race and intelligence is protected hence user created new page to post what he want. If I am making mistake, please guide me. Thanks. TRIRASH 14:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another admin userfied it.... 17:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

More disruptions

Alan, Good luck on the article writing.

If you get a chance, tak a look here Our "tough" friend is still at it, but I won't bother listing the several pop-culture sections and talk pages he's been messing in. Seems like more tit-for-tat garbage. - BillCJ 07:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found this intersting too. Always a disappointment when new users reveal a pattern of misbehavior beyond Wikipedia, in addition to their pattern here. - BillCJ 08:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to block User:Kanny1238008

He created article Teenybopperclub. I am giving below what he posted. By reading, I got emotional and tagged it as 'unreferenced', 'wikify'. But after that when I checked link, it turned out to be porn site. I request you to block this user without second thought. As the article may be deleted shortly, I am quoting below his post.

Quote Begins

teeny bopper club

teeny bopper club is an online website dedicated to providing support fo under privaliged teenagers click here to support this charity Quote Ends

Intention of this user is pure vandalism. Such vandals do not deserve second opportunity, mercy. Thanks. TRIRASH 10:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to send out the Bat signal again

Alan, some curious editing by Wikalliz to the extent that he removed the welcome message I left on his talk page. Can you check on it; another editor has thought that the newcomer might be a sockpuppet. FWIW Bzuk 00:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, saw that too...notice that on both the talk and user pages, plus almost all the edit summaries, "grammar" is misspelled "grammer". Curious. The one edit which entirely removed one of Bill's comments was a little bothersome, too. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's removed mine and your welcome comments twice; probably a "sock." FWIW Bzuk 01:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right, but for the moment he's within his rights. Until he actually runs afoul of policy, we just need to wait. I'll drop a warning over there about removing comments from talk pages. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]