User talk:Dfwaviator

Hello, Dfwaviator! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Dishonest Administrators

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I've released the autoblock that was preventing you from editing. As for the message from Abce2, you'll have to ask him/her on User talk:Abce2.

Request handled by: --auburnpilot talk 22:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Your postings on my talk page

...are still unwelcome, as I have told you previously here. Your posting was deleted, as previously promised, and for violating rule 6 of my posted talk page rules, specifically, the part about being CIVIL.

If you stop bashing every other editor you meet here, you may find that Wikipedia can be a nice place.

If you continue on your current course, acting like "a bull in a china shop", you may end up feeling unwelcome, in more places than just my talk page. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent postings have been deleted as well. I do believe you failed to take the hint when I told you to stay off my page previously, so let me put it in plain, ordinary RUDE English...FUCK OFF!!!!!! 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What part of FUCK OFF were you unable or unwilling to understand??? Feel free to answer me here, and NOT ON MY TALK PAGE! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dfwaviator (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

was not attempting to be in an edit war, was simply trying to eliminate incorrect encourage others to actually research something before typing it. I even went to the NTSB report and corrected the article with fact, instead of heresay. User Wuhwuzdat has a personal problem with me, and is requesting un warranted blocks because I will not bow down to him

Decline reason:

I have no comment on the quality of your research, but your preferred version of the article includes several paragraphs in all capital letters and personal comment on the sources, which is pretty poor-quality writing. I'm sure other users would have been happy to discuss your concerns, but it looks like you've been edit-warring and making personal attacks rather than discussing your desired changes on the talk page and trying to understand their objection to the changes you were making. Good manners, patience, and polite discussion would have been more effective. Since your request doesn't indicate that you are planning to change your editing strategy, an unblock doesn't seem appropriate. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

user:Wuhwuzdat states that he has not requested any blocks of Dfwaviator, and encourages any interested party to check his contributions to confirm this. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking editor can confirm this. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dfwaviator (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did in fact leave comments stating that the information was incorrect, and where the correct information could be found. User Wuhwuzat continues to revert my edits and use profane language on my talk page threatening me. He uses personal email to contact his friends offline, to block me from editing. Look at my talk page and read his threats

Decline reason:

As rude as he was (and he has been talked to), what he told you wasn't a threat. Since your unblock failed to address the combativeness that others have noted, and that continues below, I do not feel you should be unblocked at this time. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dfwaviator (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a complete reboot

Are you interested in some free advice from an unaffiliated observer? When you join a new forum, and several people tell you that you aren't editing in a way that follows the policies and customs of that forum, you have two choices: (a) listen to them, and accept that newcomers do have a learning curve, or (b) decide that everyone is a jerk, and start fighting with everyone you run into.

Option (a) usually ends well. Option (b) usually ends with a series of escalating blocks, with lots of ill will and wasted time on both sides.

You seem to have come here with a chip on your shoulder. Please accept the possibility that when everyone you interact with is telling you that you need to change your approach, it's more likely that you are indeed doing something wrong. Half a dozen other people all being wrong and you being right is much less likely.

Wikipedia is a complicated place, but it is welcoming to newcomers (no, really it is, let me finish my sentence) if they accept that others will know more than they do for a while, until the newcomers get their traction. It is not very welcoming to people who arrive and insist that whatever they type must be kept. That isn't how it works here. I know, we should probably do a better job of explaining that up front, but it's hard to force people to read all the links in their welcome message, and it's hard to force people to be humble for a while.

I suggest a fresh start in 24 hours. Don't request an unblock anymore, you're probably too battle-ready to deal with people right now. Read a couple of the links in your welcome message. Relax, and keep in mind that everyone is most definitely not out to crush newcomers. Listen to feedback, and get the feel of the place first. You probably ought to leave Wuhwuzdat alone, but ask the other editors and admins you run into for advice, or help, or pointers to policies. Then, you'll enjoy it. Otherwise it's just miserable, and will make you angry, and will end poorly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Wuhwuzat

This is not a personal attack, but yet a request to any administrator that might read this to read his comments on my talk page and consider his profane language and threats of "wikipedia being an unfriendly place" these comments are a violation of WP:CIVIL. Please use the same prudence you did when blocking me in punishing him, as he has broken a rule as you have alleged I have. Fair is Fair.Dfwaviator (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't punish, we prevent. Wuhwuzdat has been told by 2-3 people that their comments to you were over the top. If it doesn't happen again, then it's prevented, and we're done. If it does happen again, we'll deal with it then. He's a reasonable person who got upset, I don't see that recurring. You were blocked, instead of getting similar warnings, because you had already ignored the previous warnings, and the previous block, and were continuing to edit war. That's the difference. Also, an Important Note^TM: I promise you, in all honesty, with no dog in this fight, that holding a grudge is going to make Wikipedia miserable for you. Just let it go. Try not even saying his name any more, and it will pay you back, with dividends. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I tell you what, I will concede defeat if you block, chide or do something to Wuhwuzdat for their comments using the "F" word twice. That is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. You do that, I'm done...probably won't be back for a while. Clearly, rules or no rules I am not welcome. Dfwaviator (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the rules are not in place to punish, they are in place to prevent. Blocking Wuhwuzdat now would just be punishment. Supposing he (gender assumed) does it again, we'll deal with it then. But if he doesn't, problem solved, no block necessary. He's already been told not to do it again, by myself and others. I'm going to give you the same advice I gave him: You need to cool down. It seems like you're fairly upset about getting blocked, and the best thing to do is to wait until you're not as angry before editing again. People tend to say things they regret later when they're angry, and I don't want you to say anything you'd regret. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out blocks are preventitive not punative. The user hass been warned, at this point at block would be punative, which is not what they're for. I'll agree getting used to the policies in place at Wikipedia can be a hurdle. We'd like to create a nice place for everybody but as is evident sometimes personalities can clash. We'd love to have you back once the block as expired. Q ^{T C} 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preventative not punative.

I can understand that theory. But a blatant violation with such vile words stands to warrant some kind of action, something stronger than a warning, especially since this is the second time it has happend. If this individual, Wuhwuzdat (who I see wants to be an administrator some day) acts like this now, and in the past, it shows a pattern. And, it is clear (you can look at his/her history) that he/she can be combative, and I am not the only one who has pointed it out. I must insist that there be some kind of educational preventative measures taken against this user for their actions. It was only after his threat, that I was blocked. Dfwaviator (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think most admins are combative to some extent! Just like teachers, policemen or anyone else in a position of authority sometimes have to be. As an admin myself I've dealt with some pretty tough cases involving users who have driven multiple others off the project, who have taken over little areas of Wikiterritory all for themselves, and use every means at their disposal (including email threats to editors) to "win" debates and so on. It's not easy given the consensus nature of the medium (and the amazing capacity of WP:BLOCK to limit almost any admin who tries to assist after a few days of involvement) to get them dealt with appropriately, although in the end they almost always are. Unfortunately admins who have to deal with these too often, can get a bit burnt out and hostile to users who are well meaning but "rough around the edges". I think we can all agree that you and the project did not get off to the best start together, but if we can put the stuff that has already happened aside and try to make a new beginning of it, I think you'll likely find this place far easier to deal with. My first interaction with any Wikipedian (now over 3 years ago) was over 3 months after I first joined, and it was a pleasant one acknowledging my work in some obscure field of knowledge. Within 7 months I was attending meetups, preparing for my first Featured Article candidature (which passed) and almost exactly a year after joining I was elected an admin on a unanimous vote. Stories like mine are not actually that rare, although unfortunately I think combat and burnt-out admins are far more a reality today than they were in 2006 - but at least in my sub-area, the Australian WikiProject, I see new users come in all the time and essentially earn their place in the community by impressing others with the strength of their contributions to mainspace. Once they get that, even when the odd bit of trouble (or some narky admin) strikes they're likely to have help on hand. Orderinchaos 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize just how many new Wikipedia users we get per day? There isn't enough human editors to send out customized messages to each and every individual, so convenient bots that do just as effective as a job are used. I think you are the first person to actually bitch about being welcomed to Wikipedia with a standardized interface that provides helpful links and information that frankly could have helped you out in your latest incidents. Perhaps you should be reading that instead. seicer | talk | contribs 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Orderinchaos!

You sir, are the first person who actually admits that all is not perfect here. I applaud you for that. I also appreciate your frank views and advice. I hope to be able to contribute in my area's of expertise (Aviation, Funeral Service, and transportation infrastructure) if I can get passed people who are more interested in sensationalizing something, than the facts, i.e. my corrections to the Stevie Ray Vaughan page, where I used the NTSB report which is the final word on the subject. The original authors felt that the story sounded better if they tried to use a little aviation jargon, and add in details as if they were fact, when actually they cannot be verified, such as the attendees at the funeral.

I thought this what Wikipedia was all about, publishing reliable information in a public forum. Anyway, I do appreciate your kind words, and I will be on my best guard to adhere to all policies and procedures. I will however be vigilant and retroactive to further attacks from Wuhwuzdat, and GoGo DoDo.

Wuhwuzdat's behavior and use of profanity is beyond reasonable, and I can not believe that he was not sanctioned for it.

Anyhoo...Thanks for your encouragement. Those folks aren't going to deter me. I am a very determined individual who has no problem admitting when I am wrong, but expect respect from others when I am right, as I would be expected to respect them when they are right.

Take care, and have a great summer! Dfwaviator (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any help - and you probably aren't using Wikipedia any more - the editor in question eventually came to grief and now seems to spend his time doing purely functional edits. If you had kept cool, you might have outlasted him. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still here, still watching, despite the report to the contrary! WuhWuzDat 10:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral review.

Three administrators who are friends, and most likely colaborating my demise outside of Wikipedia does not constitute a neutral review. Its clear the only goal here is to run me off. Dfwaviator (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. I haven't communicated with FQ or Sandstein at all on your case, and very little on other issues to date. I also wouldn't call them friends, just acquaintances. According to the wikistalk tool, I've never edited an article you have, so I'm about as neutral as they come.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I don't want to engage in another battle here, but you are very involved lately with Toddst1 who does have a horse in this race, so that in my mind puts you in conflict. Dfwaviator (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TINC. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved former administrator, I can say that you were blocked first for edit warring and for failing to grasp the concept of the Manual of Style. Adding in original research and text in capitalized letters, and then lobbing snides against those who were cleaning up your mess led towards your original block.

You then continued uncivilly with general rants on varying topics, and that's not what we allow our noticeboards and talk pages for. An acceptable amount of discord is acceptable, but spamming it out onto various talk pages and noticeboards is completely out-of-line. I'm surprised your talk page hasn't been locked for the duration of the block, given your repeated exercise in wearing everyone's patience thin.

Here is a bit of advise: please zip it and wait out the block. Upon returning, begin constructively contributing to the encyclopedia, following our guidelines and policies as as has been indicated many times above. There are many helpful links in your welcoming statement; I suggest you review those. seicer | talk | contribs 14:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "horse in this race" whatsoever. We are not teams, cabals or tribes here. I strongly recommend you focus on your own actions instead of anyone else's. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interacting with others

I would love to interact with others, as you suggest. Unfortunately most editors here's idea of "interacting" is typing a command lines, and pressing "delete". They leave you a little spam message telling you in wiki-ease how stupid they think you are, and how your research, and work mean nothing because they are "administrators" or "established editors". I still don't understand why you are continuing to let an article stand that has: 1. copyrighted information. 2. Incorrect information that can be easily fixed by looking at the NTSB website and reading an official report. 3 Allowing the article to remain with embelishments that are clearly opinion and point of view. Dfwaviator (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you indeed do have a problem interacting with others, from what I've seen, especially this little note right here shows you do nothing but assume bad faith of any who disagree with your own viewpoints, or try to help you.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me, Aviator, how many independent people have to come in and say that it's you with the problem, before you actually take a look at your behavior and try to figure out if they're right after all? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the question.

Why is the copyrighted, incorrect, un-verifiable information still on the SRV "death" section? You seem to be able to say I have a problem, but you won't ask my question. Why is the information still there? Dfwaviator (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there because no one has yet realized it was wrong, opened a polite discussion about how it should be changed, proposed a better version on the talk page, and reached consensus with other editors about the best way to change it. There was someone who thought it was wrong, but he replaced it with something so badly written that everyone who saw it reverted it, and no one knew that there were factual errors, because the only person who noticed them never explained what was wrong to anyone. Then the person got blocked, and no one was sure whether his facts were actually correct or not, since he insulted a lot of people but didn't explain anything very clearly. It was kind of sad. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one asked.......

I offered the sources, 2 or three times....go look. I pointed it out several times. The accident record is a "public record" I didn't fabricate the NTSB report....but someone sure fabricated the information in that article. As far as the attendees at that funeral? Well, it doesn't agree with the guest register for the service on record (yep, it exists, just have to look) the account of the accident was quoted out of an article published in the Dallas Morning News, copyrighted, from witness accounts. It clearly does not agree with the NTSB findings. I have said all of this numerous times. No one chose to listen. Go look you will find it. That's why I am so frustrated. Everyone jumps to conclusion. The spam message on the article right now says it doesn't fit wiki's tone. When I fixed it, that spam message went away. I typed it in all caps because that's the way it was in the NTSB report. Fact is fact, and fiction is what is posted on Wikipedia right now. Go back and look, you will see where I offered the information.Dfwaviator (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also neglected to mention exactly where all this information is... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V. All information must be verifiable, and your original research, because you work there or such, is not enough.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to enjoy this...for some warped reason..my wife says it is futile to argue with you people, because it's impossible to find common ground with you.

I did offer, multiple times references, where anyone can find them. Did I ever say I worked for the NTSB? Nope! Did I say I worked for the Dallas Morning News? Nope! Are there databases published by state agencies? Yep! Did I say I worked for them? Nope! My place of employment has nothing to do with what information I might have access to. The Dallas Institute of Funeral Service is a great vault of information regarding everything that has to do with death. The library there is full of information. Many funeral service providers (especially in the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex) donate articles of interest to the library, such as service records of celebrities and other notable information. Did I say I worked for them? Nope! For example...did you know the Belo Mansion in downtown Dallas Texas was the original Sparkman Funeral Home, and handled the service for Clyde Barrow? (Bonnie and Clyde?) This information is available in the library free of charge in non copyrighted public domain information. It is verifiable. Maybe instead of someone pressing delete and putting little spam boxes telling you how stupid they think you are, maybe they should engage you in a conversation. Did I say I worked for anyone specific? Nope! Dfwaviator (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to link to a specific article where the information you report exists. Therefore, you have yet to cite your sources. Saying you got Information A from Public Library B will not work, as it is classified as original research. I'm sure you've been through school, do you at all remember the lengthy english subject of citing sources for information in papers? If you want your info to stay, do so. Secondly, it is not helping things by creating a new section every time you want to say something.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sure she was talking about us? :-) You still haven't told me where this article is you want me to repair.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Ray Vaughan, Death. Go look at the NTSB report, it is linked at the bottom of the page. The article states in POV that the helicopter hit the hill at a high rate of speed, it does not say that anywhere in the official report. If you read the report, and read the section, you will see what I am talking about. As far as the attendees at the funeral, the author does not cite their sources of the attendees. I happend to be at the Dallas Institute the other day on some other business, and made it a point to pull out the binders of service records from Laurel Land Funeral Home and Memorial Park...the correct name of the facility at which he is interred, and the copies of the guest register and service directors reports do not indicate all of the names listed. Copies can be obtained, for scanning it's just time consuming as you have to undo the binder, and that would require me being nice to someone I don't really care for, although to solve this once and for all, I might just very well do it. There were accounts of those individuals in the article from the Dallas Morning News, also in that binder at the Funeral School, and that article under the "Death" section is almost a verbatim copy of that article from the Dallas Morning News,which is copyrighted, which is why I deleted it in the first place. Believe it or not I did (still do) have good intentions, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time with it. Dfwaviator (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC) The author also cites a coroners report. I have searched every place (except one which I intend to check next week) for a copy of that coroners report. The author did not provide a link or any evidence that they had access to that corners report, therefore it is not verifiable. I will get my hands on it, and scan it, until then the information concerning the cause of death, again came from the article in the Dallas Morning News (verbatim) which is copyrighted, and not cited. That's why I got so ticked off, because at least my information was correct. Also, it says he is buried at Laurel Land Cemetery in Dallas. That does not exist, it is Laurel Land Funeral Home and Memorial Park. You can look that up on the web easy enough. Dfwaviator (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now go cite that damn source already and stop bitching about it. We've provided far than enough pointers to someone who is refusing to listen to any and all commentary and suggestions, including how-to guides to cite information. We aren't here to do your grunt work; it is your responsibility to prove that you can cite your verifiable, third-party sources. seicer | talk | contribs 02:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Ray Vaughn says that "observations indicated a high speed at impact". Since you haven't indicated you have a source that indicates a low rate of speed, I don't see any reason to change it, although it would be nice to cite those "observations" to their source. As to Laurel Land, http://www.laurellanddallas.com/who_we_are/facility.html calls it "Laurel Land Funeral Home and Cemetery". And the guest register is a decent source for who was there, but not so good for who wasn't there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From every one of your responses, it is quite clear you have not read WP:CITE. Go do so, and do not come back here until you do. As it explains quite clearly how to cite your sources, something you have yet to do.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing to remember, when it comes to aircraft accidents, the only thing, the only facts, the final word, is the NTSB report, which says nothing about the speed at which the impact occured. Now, that said anyone that knows anything about aviation knows that when a helicopter is departing a LZ (Landing Zone) it is climbing in a vertical fashion, while accelerating forward. So, based on the distance, as listed in the NTSB report, and the condition of the wreckage and bodies, the logical conclusion would be that the aircraft was traveling at a low rate of speed. However since that was not in the NTSB report, we can not say that is the case any more than the author that listed the aircraft was traveling at a high rate of speed. Only someone with aviation background, and accident re-construction experience could determine that, i.e. the NTSB....and it's not in their report, therefore I am removing it from the article. I am laying a bet that it will be reverted in less than an hour.Dfwaviator (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if your goal is to prove that information you add is quickly reverted, then adding poorly spelled and formatted information with no discussion is definitely the right choice. If your goal is to get the most accurate information into the article, I suggest that you start by explaining what you want to do on the article's talk pages, and reading what other people have to say about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen any discussion about anything on wikipedia. Just delete, or revert. No one discusses anything. I have clearly proven my research, and fact. I don't care if it was perfectly formatted, and there were no errors whatsoever, that it would still be reverted, becuase I did it. I don't remember reading anywhere that you had to ask someone's permission to change something here.Dfwaviator (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Someone...some particular user...is just waiting for me to post something.....and will, regardless of the quality or quantity delete or revert it. I guarantee it!Dfwaviator (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any more soapboxing here, complaining about Wikipedia's methods, or other disruption will result in a block. Enough. Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment. We can't change Wikipedia to suit them, so if they're unable to change themselves, they'll need to be shown the door. If you don't like the way we do things in this collaborative atmosphere, then go spend your time somewhere else. This is a privately held venture, and you have no inherent right to edit here. Tan | 39 00:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being shown the door & Private Venture

Tan , if you think I have wronged you, I am sorry, show me the door. As far as a privately held venture Wiki Foundation is A 501c3 which is very public because it is tax free. Dfwaviator (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being not-for-profit doesn't mean that you have any legal or moral right to edit. NPR is a not-for-profit radio network, but that doesn't give me the legal right to talk on the radio. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge my mistake; you are correct about the tax status. However, my point stands that you have no inherent right to edit here. Also, you have not wronged me personally; you have been very disruptive to this project as a whole, however. This thread is very illustrative of that - instead of simply going about your business here and contributing, you continue to argue (and apparently bait me to block you). Believe you me, I have absolutely no interest in ever interacting with you again. This is your choice; you are unblocked at the moment. Go forth and become a positive member of this collaborative community. Or, continue to be belligerent and argumentative, and be blocked. It's up to you. Tan | 39 13:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tan, if you want to talk about being disruptive to the "project" then go read the talk page of the SRV entry. It appears that I am not the only one with the opinion that it is poorly written and sensationalized. I have left a kind offer to repair the death section. If the other editors don't want me to do it I would gladly provide any information to anyone who would like to do it in hardcopy form via scan. Dfwaviator (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try to make a good faith offer and get a block threat right out of the gate!

I left this friendly statement at the SRV page, and got the message following including a threat of a block! This just proves no matter how nice I try to be, even offering my infomation freely to anyone who wants it if the consensus was that I should not be the one to edit it. I was told if I approached it in a friendly manner, I would be received in a friendly manner. So much for that!Dfwaviator (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death

The section regarding SRV's death is in need of some attention. The information regarding the helicopter crash, in particular needs to be completely re-written. It contains assumptions, opinions and things that simply did not happen. There is a link at the bottom of the SRV page that contains the NTSB report on this accident. It is the final word as far as the accident goes. Anything not included in this report is not verifiable fact. Regarding SRV's Funeral, the information is lacking, incomplete and poorly written. The name of the cemetery is incorrect. You don't have to believe me, anyone who is familiar with the music world can reference the 1990 Article in Guitar World that has a true and correct account of the funeral and attendees. I would like to see this information corrected. I am glad to do it myself, but it seems that anytime I attempt to correct it, someone immediately reverts it. I can cite numerous sources and provide hard copy backup for my re-write. If you don't want me to do it, then please would someone set this record straight. I would be glad to scan and email and supporting documentation to anyone who is interested, or as I said I would be glad to do it. Thanks very muchDfwaviator (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edit history shows that your only attempts to correct anything was simply to blank the entire section. The edit history shows that the section has been pared down significantly since you started your vandalism spree. Anyone can edit the section but if you do not follow Wikipedia's rules your edits will just be reverted again and you will be blocked. You would do well to propose your changes line-by-line here on this talk page and wait for agreement by other editors before going ahead with your proposed edits. Wether B (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't a terribly friendly manner, though. It was more like "I know what I'm talking about and nobody else does, so I'll graciously offer to let someone else make my perfect edits to the article." Friendly manner is "Sorry I posted the misformatted info before. Here's my suggested changes: I reviewed the policies I was pointed to, and I think I got it right this time."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* I used to know how to type and use correct grammar. What happened?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was an improvement. Sorry about my grammar here. What about some sanctions on Wether B for WP:Baiting, or WP:Civil? I am trying here folks! Dfwaviator (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photography questions

Hi! Are you around the Dallas/Fort Worth area? If so, would it be convenient for you to try to photograph the AMR Corporation/American Airlines headquarters? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please get a photo of the main entrance to the AMR/AA headquarters. Try getting a shot of the building itself if it has AA/AMR logos, similar to this shot of the Southwest HQ - Also please try to get a photo of the external AA/AMR sign and the building that the sign leads to, similar to this shot - Your suggestions of the aviation museum, etc. are also wonderful ideas - The aviation museum shot could be at AMR Corporation and at a more general article about aviation.

As for general stuff, why not try joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Dallas - It's a project about the Dallas/Fort Worth area. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]