Hello, EditorASC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
It may be a few days, or even a week or two, before I will be able respond, due to illness. I will remove this notice, when I am back to my usual abby-normal state. Thanks for your patience. EditorASC (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Click [[1]], to see the list. And, for the ones that have been transferred to Commons, click here
A few examples:
military funeral procession, Arlington National Cemetery, July, 1967 Marine Land of the Pacific, dolphin show, August, 1962 Big Sur and the Bixby Bridge near the outcropping of rocks that resembles a dinosaur, June, 1965 United Airlines DC-6, parked on the north ramp of the old Stapleton Airport, September, 1966N300Y departing the Disneyland Heliport five years prior to the accident flight
:Yes, unfortunately there are editors who love to remove pictures because they think they know more about the laws. Some people from the east coast seem to know more about our places and events than we do. I know more about junior colleges in Los Angeles County than the ones in Orange County. BTW I prefer to have the photos on the right side than gallery. Bband11th02:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I prefer the right side too, but for now will leave it in the gallery mode, to see how that might help to advance the article, without the disagreements getting too nit picky. EditorASC (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I researched the Wiki Policy on photo placement and found that what we like the best (placed on the right side of the article), is the preferred and default Wiki Policy. So, I moved them back there. EditorASC (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding the references - The OR tags were put on as I wasn't able to find the stated information on the link posted. I've since found that the information sites, but just not where directed (and with no functioning link to the history page). (I'd specifically looked for Delbert Brunton on the link [[2]], but instead could only find it through google on [[3]].). I thought I'd let you know rather than changing it as you have multiple citations to each link. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know---much appreciated. No doubt the efficiency and utility of some of the citation links can and should be improved, so that it is easier for the readers to find the sources, with as few mouse clicks as possible. Making that kind of improvements to articles is what us lowly "worker bees" do (when we can spare the time), that helps to make Wikipedia a much better encyclopedia. EditorASC (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - the world needs more workerbees working for the greater good (Unfortunately I think I edit and remove more than I add- must change that balance..)- Keep up the good work! Clovis Sangrail (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be away until end of November. I would like to discuss other than the electrical aspect - aspects that have to do with attempt at continuance of the flight to Japan as over against an attempt at water ditching, and also reports of KAL 007 on the water. Of course these will be from the angle of input from the side of your expertise. Would this type of thing be O.K. on this talk page? I realize that this is not the usual type forum for this kind of discussion. Let me know here, and if it is O.K., "see you" the end of November. Bert Schlossberg (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Bert, that will be fine. Anytime you want to discuss it more, just post it here on my Talk Page. I think I will try to figure out how to archive most of the posts on this page, since it is getting so long, and then we can start with a new, fresh page. EditorASC (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I was 3 years old my parents took me to see Bubbles once a month. We lived in Hermosa Beach for 3 years and I have many fond memories of the trip to Palos Verde and to Marineland of the Pacific. I stumbled across your photo tonight and after over 50 years I still feel the same emotions I felt the first time I saw Bubbles. She was my favorite. Thanks for the photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.231.35 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome; so glad you enjoyed those. I have approximately 36 photos of Marineland, all taken in August, 1962. I think that includes 5 or six more of Bubbles, with two taken thru the glass side of the tank, while she was totally under water. Let me know if you would like for me to Email some of those to you. EditorASC (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you knew my father. He flew for united from 1960 till the mid-80s. Brand X, ex-Capital. Flew Viscounts, DC-6 and 7, B-727, 747. ORF, EWR/IDL/LGA, MIA, ORD/MDW.
His name was Chester Lincoln. Medical retirement as Captain 727. Died last year.
No, that name doesn't ring a bell. UAL had almost 10,000 pilots during my latter years there. I was hired in 1966 and retired on the 747-400 in July, 1999, according to the FAA age-60 rule. Domiciled at DCA, LAX, SFO, DEN, ORD, and MIA. Type rated on the 727, 757/767, 777, 747-100/200/300 and the 747-400. Also served as FE on the DC-6 (see my photo above) 720, DC-8 and DC-10. Sorry to hear of your father's passing. I did fly with quite a few of the "Brand X" guys and found them to be a very enjoyable bunch, that had a lot of common sense about how to fly in the safest way possible.EditorASC (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that a bot script was used to transfer my photos to commons. When I license my photos with 3.0, I always add this required attribution statement, and link, for use of my photos outside of Wikipedia:
This attribution link required with use of the photo outside of Wikipedia: EditorASC
Sometimes that attribution statement and link does show up after the transfer to Commons, but sometimes it does not. Here is an example of when that required attribution link did transfer with the photo:
Why does the bot sometimes fail to transfer the required attribution statement and link?
And, what can be done about fixing this problem?
My willingness to provide photos to wikipedia, is based on the good-faith bargain that the required attribution statement and link will always be posted with the photo. In fact, I don't think the license to freely use, is valid, if that statement and link is removed from the photo.
That very well may have been an oops on my part. :-/ I could see myself getting rid of that text by mistake while getting rid of garbage text that that bot inputs automatically during the transfer. There are two solutions I can think of. First (and easiest for the future) is to always upload to Commons, and not Wikipedia (if you aren't already doing so). To be honest, I don't understand why they allow uploads of freely licensed images at Wikipedia any more because there are users out there that spend their time solely on transferring to Commons. The other is to consider making yourself a template that you can put on your images. This can also automatically add all your images to a category at commons (most likely Category:Images by EditorASC. I have a template at Commons and a category, which is handy. Here's an example of what you could have a template look like:
These photos were taken by EditorASC. When using an image, you must include this attribution link nearby:
If you want to go the route of a template and category, let me know and I'll create them. Then we can both spend some time adding the template to your images. I think I can speak for the community here when I say that we really don't want to lose your great photos. Too few are available between the 30s and the 90s, so they really are priceless (especially the aerials). upstateNYer23:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a very prompt and informative reply. Yes, I think I would like to adopt both of your suggested solutions. I think I did try to upload a photo to Commons once, not too long after I was a fairly new Wiki Editor. To the best of my memory, it wouldn't work because Commons did not recognize me. So, I just always uploaded to en.wiki instead. I figured Commons was only for Administrators. I guess that sounds pretty dumb, but the time I have to devote to Wikipedia has been mostly spent on improving/creating aviation articles. Thus, I still have a lot to learn about the techniques related to Wiki software.
I have a link to the list of my Wiki photos, on my talk page, if that will help in creating the template and category. My apology for causing so many to have to work to transfer them to commons. I did not know I was creating unnecessary work for others. If you can give me some advice on how to upload to Commons from now on, I will be happy to do it that way. EditorASC (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, it's not your fault. I blame the higher ups who seem to think the upload page is still needed at Wikipedia, even though it really should be limited to fair use (and a few other uncommon exceptions). I made the template and I started adding it to your images; it's here. The template only works if your image has been moved to (or uploaded at) Commons. Adding the template on images hosted on Wikipedia will not work. So there's some more incentive to move them over. :-) The category where they are all conveniently housed is here. Instructions on adding the template and uploaded to Commons are at your talk page on Commons. upstateNYer21:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all your time spent on helping me out on this. I will see if I can move the rest of the photos to Commons myself. Hopefully, I won't have to impose on your time anymore. EditorASC (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK users classify articles. An article can be at start class for 5 years if little development happens on it. If someone develops it to a C class or B class, one can recategorize the article himself or herself. One needs to make sure that the criteria for each class is met. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G'day from Oz; my bad - I have never bothered to read the NTSB report on this as I have several books that mention it in some detail. I know it as the Windsor Incident, so went with that. In some ways (traffic, an increase in street violence) Sydney isn't nearly as nice as it was thirty years ago, but now you can get a decent meal at one in the morning if you wish. Cheers! YSSYguy (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- Yes, it's best if you're working on an article to temporarily disable the categories on your user work page. Then, just add in whatever you edited back to the main article page. That way your user page doesn't show up in "Google" searches, etc. A few good templates to use at the top of your user work pages are either: {{User Sandbox}} or {{Userspace draft}}, that way your userpages don't get indexed. Hope this helps! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Superdude did the surviving hijackers thing once too often and got blocked while I was on the way home from work. Thanks for the heads-up. It's good to see you here; we have so few editors with real experience in a given area - there are so many Randy in Boise editors, and aviation articles are plagued with enthusiastic amateurs. Acroterion(talk)03:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Robert. Since you edit the website airlinesafety.com, I can understand your opinion that the content of this documentary film may not itself have support in reliable sources. Your being a former pilot yourself allows you a unique perspective. But it must be granted that Tristan Loraine as himself a former pilot is himself allowed a unique viewpoint... even if differing from yours... as what perhaps encourged him to create the film. I am not judging either of you as right or wrong, but am only offering in my argument at the AFD that Wikipedia also does not judge who is right or wrong and that per WP:NF and WP:GNG is only concerned whether or not the film has coverage as a film, and per WP:V Wikipedia ignores drawing any conclusions about its content. Please note that in respecting your concerns, I went through the article to neutralize POV quite a bit, both removing unreliable sources toward the film's content and adding proper citations to Reliable Sources that address its coverage as a film. I am not suggesting you change your opinion, but ask of you in your capacity as editor of a website and a person with an interest in airline safety, if you might provide me links to Reliable Sources that show that Loraine's film is considered controversial so that I might add them to the article in seeking a balance. With best regards, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.18:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your being a former pilot yourself allows you a unique perspective. But it must be granted that Tristan Loraine as himself a former pilot is himself allowed a unique viewpoint... even if differing from yours... as what perhaps encourged him to create the film.
I am confident you mean that sincerely. However, I do not see the dispute in that way at all. I don't see it as a conflict between diverse opinions of two different airline pilots, or that each is equivalently entitled to their opinion. You are framing it as if I am saying that I have a First Amendment right to my opinion, but he does not. Not at all. It matters not, what my former occupation was, nor the occupation of one who created a film, for which we now have a wiki spam site (created and promoted by members of that organization), masquerading as if it was a legitimate encyclopedia article.
To me, the relevant issue (which all those on the deletion debate page absolutely refused to discuss at all) is that creating articles in Wikipedia, for the sole purpose of advancing the agenda of some group, person or business, is verboten. The "what Wikipedia is Not" policy guide makes that abundantly clear. It is also clear that those who are part of such organizations, have a duty to disclose that from the start (that they are members of the organization and cause that they are promoting), and they should not become wiki editors, just so they can create spam pages for their organizations, that masquerade as legitimate Wikipedia articles. But, no one wanted to discuss that policy issue at all. It was much easier to just attack me personally, and then when I pointed out that personal attacks are never allowed in anywhere in Wikipedia, I got slammed with the "your gaming the system" argument. And that, from an editor that is a member of a group that seeks to save as many articles as possible---an auto-bias against those who request the deletion of any article.
The whole deletion process is a sham, IMHO. The militants who specialize in shooting down deletion requests, don't give a damn about the legitimate issues. That is why they canvass for votes on their side and then make personal attacks on those who are legitimately trying to improve the quality of Wiki articles. You don't have to worry: I will not be nominating anymore articles for deletion. I know it would only result in personal attacks from those who apparently have a special dispensation to violate that Wikipedia policy, with impunity. EditorASC (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I don't know if you're still editing the AF447 article. Several months ago, there was a heated up discussion about the translation of the BEA report - was the plane "flying level", was it "accelerating", etc. I've translated the relevant bits from the original report in french. I didn't check the translated version of the report, but judging from what was written on the talk page, it seems a bit different from what is said in french. Cochonfou (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks very much for your contribution. Precisely what I was looking for, when I asked other editors how we go about finding someone who is competent to make the translation for us. I think you pretty much confirmed that our questioning that "acceleration" translation, was a prudent bit of caution on our part. More comments, on the AF447 talk page. EditorASC (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The *notaforum* tag I added to Talk:United Airlines Flight 663 is a reminder to limit the discussion to the Wikipedia article. It is not an attempt "to prevent legit discussion." Your comment "I was wondering how long it would take for someone to throw in the race/religion card" does not appear to be about the article, but is more of a general comment about the incident. The Washington Post article I cited in my prior comment is evidence that this larger discussion of profiling is taking place. The WaPo citation is evidence of two things: it provides further evidence that this is a notable topic for an article, and gives evidence that the profiling debate should be mentioned in the article. Please note that the issue of profiling originated in the Washington Post and is not a general comment by me. I brought it up because I feel it is relevant to the notability and content of the article.
You are welcome to make your case against keeping the article. In fact, I encourage you to nominate it for deletion if you wish.
I'd like to add the tag back to keep the discussion focused on the Wikipedia article content and notability. Just wanted to clarify why I added the tag, which is a common tag to add on controversial topics. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such a tag is clearly an abuse of the purpose for such a tag. My comment was germane to the issue of including the kind of flash-in-the-pan news, that political activists will frequently try to keep expanding in furtherance of their political agendas. Media such as the Wash Post bringing up the same tired old racial profiling argument, is clear evidence that political agenda "reporting" is taking the place of legitimate news reporting. And, by creating an article in Wikipedia, to further advance that political agenda, violates the WP:NOT policy:
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:
"News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)"
Please assume good faith. I've seen no evidence that the article's creator or anyone discussing its notability is doing so to further "political agendas." In order to reach consensus, I encourage you to nominate it for deletion vs. commenting here and on the talk page. This incident appears to have sufficient notability to prevail in an AfD discussion. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course you do. Then, then your "Rescue Squadron," will swarm in and overwhelm those who would delete, then you can say that the "consensus" was to keep. The Rescue Squadron amounts to nothing more than a technique for vote canvasing in advance, which you should know is a violation of Wiki Policy. It is hard to assume "good faith" when you are doing all you can to cut off the legitimate discussion on the article's talk page, while trying to divert it to your Rescue Squadron delete forum, where you are assured you will get your way with a pile of pre-canvassed votes. EditorASC (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source can still be cited even if other readers do not have access. Otherwise people could remove all references to books they don't own, etc. I reverted your change. Let me know if you have any questions or need me to cite the sourcing policy. I also hope you will weigh in at the AfD.Jokestress (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. You are mistaken in your argument on the talk page. Per WP:PAYWALL: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." Just because you can't obtain a copy doesn't mean it's not verifiable. Email me if you need further help obtaining a copy. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EditorASC, I did some more edits and reinserted some text up front, but instead of tit for tat editing, how about we work together on an opening statement that you think can capture the major thesis and content of the episode that's accurate.
Even if the show has a point of view (and it does), that doesn't mean we ignore it. And for the record, I'm from a state where unions have wrecked our economy and not afraid to state it.
What I liked about the Frontline episode is that they dug deeper into what may be a systemic issue that contributed to the crash. The NTSB has to be conservative (so for instance they say fatigue probably contributed to the crash, but they can assess how much so it wasn't in the Probable Cause statement) whereas Frontline can mention it. What's important for an article is to provide relevant perspectives. We don't have to agree with them to include them. Mattnad (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would like very much to work out something that works not only for the both of us, but which also conforms to the Wiki guidelines which try to keep out POV, OR, undue weight, etc. Right now I am busy with other matters outside of Wikipedia, so it will probably be a week to 10 days before I will have the time to work on that article any further.
For now, if you can be certain that any summarization of comments by any of the parties interviewed in that Frontline Program, is accurate and has enough accompanying information along with the comments, so the average reader can access the likely bias and vested interests of the person making the comments (for example, that the "attorney" who criticized the standard indemnity clause in the feeder contract, was the attorney for plaintiffs in ongoing litigation), then a lot of the potential problems will be headed off at the pass. It is essential that the view of any of those on the Frontline Program is clearly presented as OPINION, and not as if what they are saying is FACT, unless it really is FACT (like the statement that the indemnity clause that is found in all the feeder contracts and which has, in fact, been upheld by the courts). In comparison, comments about outsourcing and "low pay" which imply that either or both were contributing factors to this accident, must be presented as OPINION, not fact. That is precisely why I put in the comment that the ALPA President did not support his seeming allegation, with any valid statistical data.
I am sure you can appreciate why that kind of information is essential, if we are not to be accused of trying to use a Wiki article for COI agendas. If one person is to be quoted, that has a certain vested interest in getting his view out there (like the ALPA President), then it must be balanced with the view of someone like the President of the commuter airlines assn, which points out that the average commuter captain is making a fairly good salary. Above all, any comments that seem to conflict with the official findings of the NTSB, will have to be supported with citations from reliable sources other than the one in the Frontline Program who is being quoted.
ALPA has long decried "outsourcing," because it is a management alternative to having no choice but to cave into the demands of ALPA---that only their pilots should fly any company flights. Obviously, ALPA opposes outsourcing, because it sometimes reduces the amount of their own membership, as well as reduces the amount of pay and benefits it can get for its members. But, when ALPA and other Lecacy airline unions try to cast that "outsourcing" issue as a SAFETY issue, then they are on very thin ice. I know of no valid statistical studies which show that outsourcing has increased the risk of flying or reduced alleged "margins of safety." Without such non-biased, objective evidence, we at Wiki must be very careful about how much weight we give to opinions that outsourcing was a contributing factor in that accident. In fact, one could make a pretty good argument that it was not a case of oursourcing at all, since the Colgan pilots ARE ALPA pilots.
If you're going to introduce your counterpoint to the frontline section, please provide a relevant source otherwise it constitutes orginal research and will be removed. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while so what's obvious to me may not be to others. You have added your own editorial commentary to the section in addition to what was covered in the Frontline episode. So for instance, citing a statistic that air travel is safer than any other time in history is your comment that a) needs a citation, and b) needs to be connected to the Frontline investigation by a reliable source (see WP:RS). I'll add that it's an irrelevant stat since Frontline was focusing on the regional airlines and not the overall industry. A more telling stat is what portion of fatal accidents were with regional airlines (which you left out even though it's quoted in the Frontline episode). Likewise, your comment that the plaintiff's attorney interpretation was financially motivated is your opinion (as far as I can tell) and needs a source - otherwise it's OR (or really just your opinion). What you are doing, aside from advancing your own POV under the guise of NPOV, is at best WP:SYN. There are other examples in what you have done but I think I've made my point.
It's our job to cover what has been said/written. It's not our job to insert our opinions and bring up unrelated facts to counter something we personally don't agree with. Mattnad (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it appears that we are headed for an OK Corral Shootout, I think it best that this be coppied to the Colgan talk page, so that when any Admins are called in, they will have a comprehensive picture of how this dispute began and then developed. I will give you my answer [there] EditorASC (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of creating a report that involves you at the 3RR/Edit War noticeboard. Please come and make a response to the report. SilverserenC01:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Editor! I really have jiust a technical question, but one nonetheless that I should point out is not answered by the Boeing 747SP article. How much runway lenght in feet is needed for an SP to land at your airport? Seeing as one actually landed at Bullhead City Airport, which only has 7,001 feet runway, it made me wonder. Plus like I said, we need that info posted at the plane's article. Thanks and God bless! Antonio Always Ready Martinloser's talk page07:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend, to a great extent, upon how heavy the plane was when it landed. All airliners have landing and takeoff performance charts, which the pilots must use for every operation. A 747-400 could land at an airport with only a 7000 ft. runway, provided its landing weight was light enough to fall within the limits of the chart for landing on a particular, specified runway. Other factors which are often fed into the calculation, are head or tail wind components, wet or dry runway, presence of any clutter (slush, snow, ice, frost layer, etc.), runway width (important for wide-bodied aircraft, since they are more limited in entering & exiting narrower runways - depends upon location and kinds of turnoffs connected to taxiways), whether or not the runway is grooved, displaced thresholds (if any, which reduces the actual usable length of the runway), how many brakes are operational (believe it or not, a 747 can be dispatched with some of the brakes deferred-inoperative, if the TO & LDG runways are long enough and the weight of the plane is light enough), etc. The charts do not take into account the added braking effect of engine reversing. If the approach is made in IFR conditions, then the extent of runway lighting can be a factor too.
I once landed a 747-400, that was 50,000 lbs over the max landing weight for that plane, at SFO, on R28R, which is almost 12,000 ft.long. I was able to turn off that runway, without any heavy braking, well before the end. Don't believe I used more than 8,000 ft. Had a good headwind at the time.
Thanks Editor ASC!! I guess that it must be a misconception that a real large runway is needed to land the queen of the skies! (thought I wouldn't recommend it to land on a 3,000 feet runway either!!) What airlines have you flown with?? Antonio the Obnoxious User Martinloser talk 08:37, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
Just UAL, for 33 years. Started in July, 1966 as a FE on the DC-6, and retired in August, 1999, as a 747-400 Captain. I was very fortunate in that I avoided all the low years, when they had to furlough some of the pilots. My seniority number was high enough that the layoffs never got down to me. Pure luck of the draw. Many other pilots had to get jobs with two or more airlines, during their career. Which illustrates why the union seniority system is both stupid and counterproductive. Each time a furloughed pilot goes to work for another airline, he has to start all over again, at the bottom of the seniority list for THAT airline. Stupid waste of experience and talent, but that is what the union mentality requires: One size fits all. Cheers, EditorASC (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I can't say that I have flown United yet, but as an airline lover, and United being right there along with legendary airlines like Braniff, Air France, Delta, Pan Am, Lufthansa etc etc, I love United Airlines!!
About flying for 2 or more airlines-I hope you laugh about this!-when I was about 10, I envisioned myself as a free agent airline pilot-professional boxer! The way I saw it, I could fly my own airplane SJU-CDG on Air France Saturday, fight next Friday for a world title in Paris, then pilot Iberia's 727 CDG-MAD and it's 747 MAD-SJU the next day!! I was ten after all!!
Ok now I have a question..I only flew the 727 once so far, SJU-ATL on Eastern Airlines. This flight seemed to me like we were on a steep upward pitch all the way through, even when we were actually cruising. Other flights Ive had on any other planes (Delta and Eastern's L-1011, American and Eastern's 757) or similar types (American's MD-80 series) I have never experienced anything similar. Nevertheless, I was a bit nervous on that SJU-ATL flight because of the way the cockpit seemed so high up there and the tail section seemed like we had to walk down to get to the restrooms. Is that normal on 727 flights or maybe the pilots were trying to avoid some atmospheric event or something??
I used to have some great fantasy world ideas myself, when I was that young. Tarzan was in vogue then and I wanted to take off to Africa and live in the jungle like he did. After I finally gave up that idea, I spent a lot of time off the end of the runway at the old Stapleton Airport in Denver, watching the planes pass over my head just moments before landing. I was fascinated to no end with the sound of wingtip vortices [[6]] falling to the ground after the plane had passed by, and I could hear the engines no more.
All airliners will settle into a positive pitch attitude during cruise flight, usually between 2 to 4 degrees ANU. Whatever is required to maintain a desired altitude and speed at the time. The heavier the plane is, when it first arrives at the pilot's chosen cruise altitude, the more ANU it will display. And, as the fuel burns off and the plane becomes lighter in weight, the degree of ANU will gradually decrease, if the same speed is maintained. Or, if the speed is increased, the ANU will reduce somewhat too, but that usually isn't done unless schedule is more important than economical consumption of fuel (most nautical miles per gallon of fuel consumed). If, however, the plane is well ahead of schedule, the pilot can elect to allow the speed to reduce somewhat, as fuel is burned off. That will help him get the most miles per lb of fuel, but it will also keep the ANU higher than if he maintained the same speed. As for the pilots trying to avoid some event, it is possible they climbed to a higher altitude earlier than desired, because they thought ATC would keep them at a much lower altitude for a long time (because of conflicting traffic). That would force the plane to keep a higher ANU than normally desired, because of the weight/altitude ratio at the time for that particular aircraft. Doing that reduces the spread between high and low buffet speeds ("coffin alley"), so they don't do that too often, unless they are confident of smooth air ahead.
Each airliner is designed to cruise at a specific Mach #, to ensure the greatest fuel efficiency for each flight. The B-737, for instance, usually cruises at Mach .77, while the 747-400 normally cruises at M .84. Try to go faster than the book specs for econ-cruise, and the nautical miles per pound of fuel will fall off rather sharply. It all has to do with the angle of attack of the wings, that the design engineers determined to be best for a particular airliner.
Your experience was probably caused by that 727 being very heavy for its cruise altitude. If so, the pitch was likely near 4 to 5 degrees ANU. Even 2 degrees difference in the ANU will cause passengers to feel like they are trudging up a steep hill, while walking forward in the cabin. Cheers, EditorASC (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft accident list: pilots unaware of their true situation
This is a partial list of air accidents caused by pilots failing to comprehend their true situation, until it was too late. None of these accidents would have happened, if the pilots had been flying according to SOPs and remained fully aware of the information that their cockpit instruments were providing them,
Another NEAR disaster occurred on November 11, 1979, when an Aeromexico DC-10 entered a sustained stall while climbing through FL 300, over Luxembourg, Europe. The pilots failed to recognize the stall condition and instead, blamed the heavy buffeting on the #3 engine, which they shut down, while they continued to hold the nose up. The plane finally nosed down on its own and the pilots recovered before reaching FL 180, after they quit pulling back on the control column. The engine was restarted, the declaration of emergency canceled and the flight continued to Miami, Florida. Ground inspection revealed 4 feet missing from each of the outboard elevator tips, including their balance weights. The NTSB found the failure of the flight crew to monitor their flight instruments led to the sustained stall buffeting, which imposed structural overload, causing the failure of both outboard elevator tips and balance weights. If those pilots had continued to pull back on the yoke, as did the AF 447 pilots, then the result would have been the same, excepting only that the Aeromexico DC-10 would have crashed on land, instead of in the ocean.
I haven't restored the material in the middle of your comment on the closed thread at Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 214 because it was in a closed thread, but please stop calling it vandalism. It was misplaced, but that was all. Please reconsider your tone in interacting with other editors. I realize that you have professional experience in the field, and that comments by people with less experience than you have (or worse, by simulation enthusiasts) can be irritating, but please try to respond constructively, or at least with less grumpiness. Acroterion(talk)
12:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. It did constitute vandalism to knowingly and willfully alter the post of another editor. The second time he did it, he even moved my post over to make it look even more like it was my words.
Regardless, if it constituted vandalism or not, no one has the right to alter the posts of other editors. Reinserting a false, misleading and fraudulent (whether intended or not) is intolerable. No Wiki editor should have to stand still for such thoughtless actions on the part of another editor. Closed or not, that false and misleading altering of my posts cannot be allowed to stand. EditorASC (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asiana Airlines Flight 214, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Your upload of File:6209-267YosemiteMirrorLake.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)11:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bleed air in gas turbines comes in many varieties. The term is most commonly used to refer to air that is taken from the engine and used for purposes outside of the engine and as the accompanying video cite details there is more then one source that does more than one job. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.94.206 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
91.72.55.165 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)It appears you are not willing to allow up to date information to be placed on the Aerotoxic Syndrome wiki page including the US Congress House Report 112-381 - FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012. Section 917. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF EQUIPMENT TO CLEAN AND MONITOR THE ENGINE AND APU BLEED AIR SUPPLIED ON PRESSURIZED AIRCRAFT which recognises the issue of aerotoxic contamination.You have also removed references to FAA guidelines on health and safety on fume incidents.
In addition you are removing references to legal judgements that have been made concerning the subject includng one where Boeing have settled with a flight crew member from American Airlines as well as removing links to leading journals referencing the subject matter. You replace these with out of date information.[reply]
I request that you read what has been posted, bring yourself up to date and up to speed with the subject matter and if you disagree with it discuss this in the talk page.
The lead section is supposed to be fairly brief and a summation of what is discussed in detail later on. THAT is the first thing that is wrong with your revisions: you are trying to rehash the entire article all over again in the lead. That violates the Wiki rules on Manual of Style.
Secondly, It is apparent that you are not reading the Aerotoxic Talk Page. You are REQUIRED to discuss your proposed revisions there, when they are controversial and likely to be challenged. I have explained in great detail, what is wrong with your POV and OR statements and why the citations you attempt to support them with, are not valid and why they violate the WP:RS and WP:MEDRS citation rules for Wiki editors. Your repeated refusal to comply with those rules and requirements and to continue to re-install POV and OR statements, along with invalid citations -- that do NOT support those POV/OR statements -- constitutes willful vandalism at Wikipedia.
Your revisions will continue to be reverted, so long as you insist upon adding POV and OR statements and citations which do NOT meet WP:RS & WP:MEDRS standards.
So are you saying that the information I have included are not valid even though they refer to published legal decisions and changes in the law made by the US congress? Or are you just trying to tell the world there is no such thing as aerotoxic poisoning despit Boeing settling a case and the Austrlin courts doing the same?
In relation to your comment on controversial I consider the most controversial statement I see on the entry you contnue to insist on replacing, even though it is out of date in its factual content, is the word propaganda, totally uneccssary use of this word in this context.
I note in some of the prvious comments above from otehr editors whi have attempted to interact with you concerning this page that state you appear to just delete anything you do not agree with.
Also there is no need to shout in the dialouge by using fully capped words, I am not deaf.
I will continue to revert your edits until you engage in ameningful dialouge about the subject matter as ooposed to hiding behind wike speak terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.165.22.157 (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly explained in great detail on the Talk Page why each of your POV & OR statements are not supported by valid WP:RS & WP:MEDRS citations. Your reply here simply ignores those very specific issues. The lead section is only for a brief summary of what is discussed in detail later on in the article. Your repeated attempts to rehash all of the details of the article in the lead, is itself a violation of the Manual of Style guidelines. If you attempt to put more POV & OR statements in any part of the article, without valid WP:RS and WP:MEDRS citations to support those statement, they too will be removed.
It is apparent that you don't give a damn about the Wiki prohibition of POV & OR statements, nor about the requirement that supposedly neutral and valid scientific statements be supported by citation sources which qualify under the WP:MEDRS rules. If you did, you would discuss in detail ON THE TALK PAGE, each of the specific issues that have been raised, so as to try and resolve what can be said in a non-POV & non-OR manner, and what kind of citation sources can be used to support such statements. Until you are willing to do that, you are going nowhere. Your deliberate vandalizing of the article will be reverted each time you do it. EditorASC (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So lets make sure we understand each other. You keep refeering to WP:MEDRS rules, these are clear they state "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." So providing the references I make on ths page compy with this criteria you have no objection to material being posted providing itand relates to the subject and is supported by independent evidence, Journal of Environmental Health and Toxology, Published papers from leading professors. Hhow do you want to treat legal judgements made such as the Boeing settlement or health advice from the FAA and othe cases in Australia and Europe, do you consider these to be references that you would agree with. So how would you consider the US congress decision to change the FAA satute concerning bleed air, or does an act of law by the US congress not constitute a vaid reference.
I consider your continued revision of my edits to be the act of vandalisim as it is removing up to date information and references to legal judgements and US congress actions which are relevant to the subject matter. It is clear that as an editor you only wnat to see information on this page that you agree with and IMHO you have a clear industry lead bias on this subject matter, something which has already been pointed out by other who have treid to edit this page.
Over to you for a meaningful response which does not keep hidding behind WP rules
This discussion belongs on the Aerotoxic Syndrome TALK PAGE. I have explained there in great detail what was wrong with each of your POV/OR statements and the citation links you used to attempt to support them. I will be happy to discuss further with you on that page, AFTER you address each of my critiques as to why your posts did not comply with Wiki rules. Your "hiding behind" argument is not productive and amounts to a deliberate evasion of the relevant issues. You are going to have to drop that red herring, if you really want to make some headway.
As to legal precedents, there is already a section on that. It is not appropriate to bring all sections up to the lead and try to rehash them again there. If you want to add what you think is new and productive info in any relevant section, then do so AFTER you have read and addressed my objections to your previous statements and citations. From here on out, if you want a discussion, it will have to be on that TALK PAGE, so all other editors can be informed as to the relevant issues. Do not post again on this page. If you do I will just delete it. EditorASC (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, what Alice-in-Wonderland fantasy could possibly suggest to you that I would care what you think about me? Is your real name Ellsworth Toohey? EditorASC (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fume event may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
exchangers, before it is directed into the airconditioning units, which cool it even further. <ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/cabinair/index.page.html|title=Cabin Air
Hello, EditorASC. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Posted 01:20, 10 November 2014, by Administrator Orange Mike | Talk For anyone interested, the discussion is in Archive 48, and is item # "32 International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations." [[7]] EditorASC (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EditorASC. As I said I would, I have been stepping into the aerotoxic article. I've reviewed the disclosure on your talk page and reviewed your contributions to the aerotoxic article. The first thing I want to say is general and not about the aerotoxic article - namely, please refrain from citing your own website when you edit. I did a search in Wikipedia for links to it - here are the results. I don't know if you added those links/refs or someone else did, but if it was you, please don't do that going forward, per WP:SELFCITE. Thanks.
About the aerotoxic article, in my judgement, you are editing with a very strong point of view (POV), and that comes through both in the content changes you make, the sources you use (which are often of low quality), and the tone of what you write on talk. I cannot see that you have any conflict of interest since you appear to be retired and run your website for pleasure. If you do have any conflict of interest (if you for example consult for the airline industry, or if you have real world disputes with people about aerotoxic syndrome, those external relationships would constitute a COI here in Wikipedia (which is different from other publications) Please do review the WP:COI guideline, carefully, and if you have any conflicts to disclose, please do so.
However, from your editing behavior which I described above, you have in my view, issues with what we call "advocacy" here in Wikipedia, with regard to aerotoxic syndrome. Please do read WP:ADVOCACY (and note how behavior-wise, it is pretty indistinguishable from COI editing). Advocacy is one of hardest issues to deal with here. Many people come to Wikipedia because they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which is really destructive. The only thing you can do, is: 1) be aware of your passion and understand that you may view things differently than other people; 2) make sure that everything you do when working on the stuff about which you are passionate - namely the content you edit, the sources you use, and the way you conduct yourself in Talk discussions and in edit notes - make sure all of that complies with what you should do in Wikipedia. (All the policies and guidelines describe what is best - what editors should do - as well as what is allowed) Aim high. And remember that everybody working here in Wikipedia is a person. Some people are really messed up, some people are great, everybody makes mistakes... but we are all people. Try to avoid dehumanizing "the other guy". But above all, please tone it down.
I hope you take all this in the spirit it is offered, which is wanting to help you, and wanting to turn down the heat on the dispute on the aerotoxic articles so that the content can be improved. Happy to discuss - please let me know what you think, after considering this. Please take your time. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am very surprised, because up to now you seem to have been devoted to very careful research, and careful to make conclusions only after you have reviewed ALL of the available evidence. If you had done a COMPLETE job of researching my history of editing in Wikipedia, you would have found, that with very few exceptions (I will list and discuss those in a subsequent response below) all those links to articles at my web-sight were made by OTHER Wikipedia editors, and without any discussion between myself and them, about such linking.
What is apparent, is that many other Wiki editors (with which I have had no contact) seem to recognize the excellence of many of the articles at my website -- so much so that they felt those articles were a very good WP:RS for some of the edits they were making. Up until now, I was completely unaware of the vast majority of those links to my site. I have read WP:COI many times, and see nothing in it which would place a duty upon me to research all of Wikipedia to ensure no other editor has used articles at my site, as WP:RS for their statements. I wouldn't know how to conduct such a search, even if I thought otherwise.
So, to use all those links, posted by other editors without my knowledge or collusion, as evidence of some kind of "agenda editing" in any of the edits I have made at Wikipedia, is to claim I should be judged or punished on the basis of what other editors have done, without my knowledge or consent. I cannot believe you could really take such a position. Rather, I think your comments are based upon your own haste and failure to do a COMPLETE research of my history at Wikipedia. I will continue this response below, about the few exceptions, but that will take some time on my part, which I don't have right now, so please give me some more time to post that part. EditorASC (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."
I think I have NEVER posted a link in any Wiki ARTICLE, to my site, nor have I made statements in Wiki articles that were taken verbatim from any articles that I have posted at my webpage. I did post a link to one article on the TALK PAGE of the UAL 585 crash, because I had researched and written a lot on the subject of the faulty rudder PCU of the B-737 and was also making edits in that article. I believed the COI rules required me to disclose that to the other editors in that article so if they thought I made any edits that were not compatible with WP:RS for that article, they could easily spot it and object.
However, I also made it clear I did not think I should post a link to my own 737-PCU article (because that might violate the COI rules), in the Wiki ARTICLE but that other editors could make their own judgements as to that article having any information that might be legitimately useful to those editors. Apparently, at least one of them (again, without my discussion or communication with whatever editor did link it) apparently thought that article at my website contained useful WP:RS info. I think it was several years later that I had become aware that another editor had posted a link to my article, in the UAL 585 crash article.
I looking at the quote I have given above, I think my posting that link on the UAL 585 crash TALK PAGE was quite proper and in so doing I was conforming with the notice rules in WP:COI, plus I was also acting within the confines of that quotation (above) from WP:SELFCITE. In short, no one should fault me for noticing other editors on a TALK PAGE, that I had written an article on the subject being discussed on that TALK PAGE, and providing them a link so they could review what I said in the article and compare it to what edits I had made at the Wiki UAL 585 crash article. EditorASC (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This case [[9]] of my posting a link to my website is self-explanatory. Again it reveals my concern for an article which failed to discuss the most important part of a Fed Ex MD-11 crash: Bad design. I made it clear I thought that subject should be brought into the article, because it was factual, but that I didn't think it proper for me to make such edits, because I had written extensively about the issue at my website. Read this carefully: it makes clear my concerns were proper and it was also proper to inform my fellow editors about a possible COI on my part, so I thought if the issue was to be discussed in the Wiki article, it had to be another editor doing that; not me. It is apparent I did it properly, because the other editors agreed my concerns were proper and that I was acting properly. Here is the entire comments on that TALK PAGE:
"I vote against deletion. This is a very significant and notable accident, because it appears to be the result of deficient design of the aircraft itself. The MD-11 was deliberately designed with a dynamically unstable pitch mode. It has a significantly smaller horizontal stabilizer than other airliners. That, plus the shifting of its center of gravity further aft, all to reduce drag and thus fuel burn, causes it to be unusually light on the controls. That design, known as "relaxed stability," is common to fighter planes, but is not normally found in the pitch axis of a civilian airliner. It makes it more likely that the pilot will over control and exacerbate the situation, during a recovery attempt after a high altitude upset, or during a hard and/or bounced landing. That deficient design, combined with a lack of in-depth pilot training for upset recovery in the MD-11, was the cause of the December, 1992 upset accident, as well as 4 other upset incidents. The November, 1994, May, 1996 accidents, (both at Anchorage), as well as the June, 1997, July, 1997, August, 1999, and November, 2001 accidents, were linked to that dynamically unstable pitch mode, which was and still is part of the deficient design of the MD-11. And, after watching the film of the Narita crash yesterday, it appears that will again be the result of that deficient unstable pitch design."
"I am reluctant to write about that deficient design myself (in the main Wiki articles which are related to the MD-11) simply because I wrote that article, 10 years ago. It is likely that I would be accused of POV, OR or even spamming for my own website, if I did. Thus, I suggest that others discuss that issue (of deficient design), because it is a factual part of the MD-11 history. I think it both necessary and proper to discuss the issue of deficient design in an airliner, when it results in accidents that led to the loss of human lives. EditorASC (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)"
"You are right, you would be accused of all of those, because the article isn't the place to discuss your own opinions on the design of the MD-11 (and it is an opinion no matter how you try to spin it). JoeD80 (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)"
"Just for the sake of getting the record straight, my entire website article is not mere opinion. Yes, it does contain some of my opinion within the article, but the vast majority of the article discusses the actual facts about the design of the aircraft (like the FACT that it is dynamically unstable in the pitch mode, because the HS is considerably smaller than most other modern jet airliners), as well as many of the accidents and why they happened (NTSB's conclusions, not mine), and ADs. In other words, my article is loaded with facts about the MD-11 history. Further, I never suggested that it was appropriate for me to discuss my mere opinions about the MD-11 in any Wiki article about the MD-11. I simply suggested that there would be less problems if others would raise the issue of deficient design, simply because I had written an extensive article on that subject. EditorASC (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)"
"You can, however, list crashes of MD-11s and cite their cause. If there were, say, a trend, and you had supporting articles (such as airlinesafety.com) and cited them properly, then there's no reason why that information would be inappropriate or POV. Wikipedia is not the place for original research - but, if the original research is somewhere else, then who's to say it's just your opinion? Also, oppose deletion, even though that debate has already come to keep consensus. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)"
If this doesn't prove my concern for avoiding any posts that might be considered a violation of COI, then I don't know what could convince you. EditorASC (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page [[10]] is NOT a Wiki article page, as far as I can determine. It appears that User:EditorASC/SB-3, and all such pages with that USER NAME of "User:EditorASC/SB-3," were sandbox pages I created so I could figure out how to do some of the required link formatting. I have no idea why or how those sandbox experiments turned into a new USER page, that mimicked my "EditorASC" account. I have used my sandbox numerous other times and I don't see that they somehow morphed into new USER Pages. Maybe you can explain to me how that could have happened?
I didn't have a thought about using sandbox to experiment with how things would look, if I tried to create new articles. All that I read is that we're encouraged to do our learning/experimenting in our sandboxes, so that we wouldn't screw up actual Wikipedia articles.
If this was a screwup on my part, I will apologize even if I don't understand how the sandbox software works, or what/how I did something improper. This all happened in 2009, apparently. I knew a lot less about proper Wiki link formatting back then. And, it is likely that software in use in that year had some deficiencies in it that might have contributed to any screwup on my part, IF that is what really happened.
If other people are posting links to your site that is great. What I wrote was, " I don't know if you added those links/refs or someone else did, but if it was you, please don't do that going forward, per WP:SELFCITE." I never said that you posted them. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did say that. But, you said a lot of other stuff that wasn't accurate too and you made your judgement of me based on what that partial search seemed to say, without the required additional analysis which in itself proves I have consistently acted in a proper manner so as to avoid becoming another COI SPA editor.
You are criticizing me with little more than innuendo while at the SAME TIME the COI-SPA SPAM advocacy editors (Screwjack1981 (talk | contribs)and Medidog1951 (talk | contribs)) are permitted to continue to edit at the two Aerotoxic articles without any hindrance from Admins who are supposed to be enforcing the WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:COI rules. Instead, you jump on me because I have objected to those rules being consistently and willfully violated by those COI editors, without Admins doing their proper duty to stop it. You have accused me of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, yet your making that accusation violates the instructions in WP:TENDENTIOUS:
"Accusing others of tendentious editing"
"Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly. Rather than accuse another editor of tendentious editing, it may be wiser to point out behaviours which are contrary to Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR,WP:RS,WP:NPOV and the 3RR rule."
I have often done as this section advises: I have pointed out many times how some edits violate the WP:RS and WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM and WP:NOT rules, but the result most of the time (though there have been some exceptions -- a few Admins doing their proper job) has been that the Admins ignore those repeated and massive violations by the COI-SPA editors, and instead accuse me of being uncivil, tendentious, and even violating 3rr EVEN THOUGH WP:VANDALISM clearly states that the kind of repeated violations of proper editing rules which has been a hallmark of those COI-SPA editors (removing valid statements and valid WP:RS and WP:MEDRS cites, and replacing them with unverified statements along with cites that do not support the statements, or no proper cites at all), DOES constitute a form of hard-to-detect VANDALISM. The Aerotoxic Syndrome TALK PAGE is loaded with those kinds of warnings, time and time and time again, yet those COI-SPA editors continued to repeat those kinds of edits, which DID work towards damaging the article, just as described in WP:VANDALISM. That tells me that some Admins are overlooking all those repeated violations of Wiki Rules, because they too have an agenda to publish and help others to publish articles which are so critical of large, "greedy Capitalist" corporations.
One of the worst examples of an Admin misusing his powers to advance his own WP:ADVOCACY agenda, was this case [[11]] (Archive 48, and is item # "32 International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations.)
When I first read the IFALPA page, I noted the tag at the top which stated the following: ”This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)“
That tag had been there for over 7 years!!! Can anyone argue that length of time was far more than necessary, to give interested editors adequate time to respond and revise the many POV and OR statements to those which could be supported with appropriate WP:RS citations? No rational person would indulge in such an absurd argument.
Before I began deleting POV, OR statements, which often contained weasel words, I posted a lengthy explanation on the Talk Page, of why I was going to begin deleting statements which were clearly in violation of Wiki editing rules. NO ONE RESPONDED! Thus, I began deleting statements, one by one, that were not in compliance with the editing rules of WP: VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:OR:
“All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.” And, “This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.”
“The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.” Additionally, from the NOR Noticeboard page: “"Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.”
I gave those rules as the reason I made those deletes, both in the edit summaries of EACH delete, AND in my lengthy additional explanation on the appropriate Talk Page. I did NOT use any part of my website, nor any argument contained in my website as justification for any of the deletes I made!! Therefore, it was wholly inappropriate for Admin Orange Mike | Talk and another editor, to make reference to my website as some sort of justification for Admin Orange Mike to do a wholesale, massive revert of all my appropriate deletions, that were done solely on the basis of Wikipedia rules of editing.
Both Admin Orange Mike and that other editor refused to respond to the legitimate Wiki editing rule reasons that I gave, for my deletes on the IFALPA revision history page and the Talk Page. Instead, they BOTH resorted to a type of personal attack, that tried to overrule all those fundamental Wiki rules of editing, with their own wholly inappropriate attempt to justify Admin Orange Mike's wholesale, massive revert (without giving any reason in the edit summary for that revert) by speculating about how I MIGHT, AT SOME FUTURE TIME, make Wiki edits that are not in conformance with Wiki editing rules!!!
In short, they were relying on their own agenda biases to overrule all the Wiki rules that are NOT NEGOTIABLE, according to the Wikipedia statements which spell out those rules! I acted as any dutiful Wiki editor should: I deleted statements that had been in clear violation of those wiki editing rules, for over SEVEN YEARS.
They charged that: “You are also manifestly partisan on the issue.”
My response: "That statement is false. Where have I said anything, in explaining the reasons for my deletes, that could be honestly described as “partisan?” Show it to me and quote me EXACTLY, if you can find any such partisan statement." Of course, neither answered that challenge, precisely because I had never made any such statements.
That article was formed in the first place by labor union members that were using Wikipedia as their own Spam page. Yet, Admin Orange Mike supported that kind of misuse of Wikipedia apparently because he DOES have a political agenda of his own: to aid and abet Labor Unions using Wikipedia in an improper way (creating their own Wiki SPAM articles, in violation of WP:NOT and WP:SPAM). He proved that by doing a massive revert of all my deleting edits on the article, without any explanation in his edit summary, and FURTHER, because he refused to discuss the relevant issues I had raised and given as my reasons for the deletes, on that article's TALK PAGE. The only response I got (from that other editor) was: “I therefore suggested that the two of you go back to the talk page and try to build consensus.”
My response: "How can I do that, if you and Orange Mike adamantly refuse to discuss the actual, valid issues that I have raised on the IFALPA Talk Page? That continuing refusal precludes any possibility of consensus if you do not recognize the Wiki editing rules as being non-negotiable, as those rules themselves state? I have taken considerable time to state my positions on that Talk Page, and my reasons given for the deletes are wholly compatible with the statements on Wiki editing rules: “This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.”
As it turned out I eventually discovered that IFALPA website had been copied, word-for-word from THEIR PARTISAN WEBSITE, to create that SPAM article at Wikipedia. I then posted a notice to Admins about a possible copyright and/or plagiarism violation. Within a day later and Admin responded and completely deleted the article. Now, that page is being created again, by the same kind of COI-agenda editors, and they are already using their own self-published source to "verify" at least one of their newly posted statements. How come no Wiki Admins seem to notice that, but they will quickly notice when I and others like me point out that Wiki editing rules are again being violated? The only conclusion I can come to is that many, if not a majority of Admins have political agendas of their own and they regularly use and abuse their powers to squash editors whom they deem to be a threat to their own agendas, EVEN IF those editors scrupulously abide by Wiki's editing rules and especially if they dare to expose other editors who are repeatedly violating those rules.
Right now, I still don't include you in that bunch of Admins that deliberately abuse and misuse their powers to advance their own political agendas. Rather, I tend to think you are just one of those Admins that is loath to criticize any of his fellow Admins, because you know that to do so will probably cause massive negative reaction from those kinds of abusive Admins, in the same way that I have received so much flak after I keep pointing out how some editors keep violating Wiki's editing rules. And, that might end up in your having your Admin capacity revoked. Not unlike the "Blue Line" that some police forces form, when one of their own has the courage to report corruption in their own ranks. That kind of whistle-blower can usually count on most of his fellow officers refusing to cover his back, from then on, thus many do not have the courage to speak out about blatant corruption.
FINAL NOTE, to further explain why I see that many Wiki Admins are not doing their job properly: Even now, the greatly truncated version of "Unfiltered Breathed In - The Truth about Aerotoxic Syndrome" has an invalid "verification" link, namely #2, which goes to IMBD.Com, which we all know constitutes a self-published source which makes it NOT WP:RS. If I dared to remove that myself, because the Wiki rules clearly prohibit that kind of linking, I would probably be banned on some charge dreamed up by another agenda-biased Admin, who has no qualms about misuing his powers, to get rid of "threats" like me. EditorASC (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, It sounds like you had a difficult time on the IFALPA page. Sorry about that. The old article was deleted in Nov 2014 for being unambiguous COPYVIO; it was created again in December 2015. I just reviewed it - the article right now is a reasonable stub.
I am not an admin (repeat - I am not an admin) so I cannot see the old Talk page. I am sorry that you had a hard time there.
Again, I hope you can hear this, but the way you write on Talk does not help you. Writing very long posts like this, with lots of caps and bolding etc, and impassionated language, is not how experienced, neutral, (and most importantly) effective editors work. People generally don't read long posts carefully (see WP:TPG (please really do read that, especially the section on Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration), and the essays WP:WALLS and WP:TLDR may be helpful) and even seeing a long post is dismaying and makes people want to ignore you. I and others have advised you to be more brief and less impassioned in your remarks. Even if you are correct about what you want to do, writing this way on Talk is shooting yourself in the foot. How you communicate really matters in WP, as it does everywhere. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, right. You remind me of an aunt of mine who regularly instructed her children to "do as I say, not as I do." I should be able to learn from you about how to keep it brief and civil, no matter how unethical the other guy acts? [[12]](#35) And, in spite of the fact you have attacked me and implied I have violated COI standards, without your having a shred of evidence to support a scurrilous charge like that? I don't see that kind of tactic as any different in principle, than when Orange Mike did a massive revert of my carefully thought out and properly explained deletes, of un-sourced material from a Wiki article that was nothing more than a copyright violation Spam page -- because of what I might post in the future.
Well, as I said, I don't view you as one of the corrupt ones, but you sure do come across as being afraid of your own shadow. Sorry if that offends you, since not offending anyone seems to be very high on your hierarchy list of ethical goals. Pretty low on my list of ethical standards -- far, far below concepts like Truth, Honesty and upholding the equal rights of all before the Law, all of which are way ABOVE disingenuous tactics to avoid the real issues of any dispute, which seems to be essential to those who lust for power over others. EditorASC (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep it is hard to do what is best for everybody, and easier to see what the other guy is doing wrong - those things go for me too. With regard to offending, it is most important to me, to be clear, and to make sure that the sources I bring are of very high quality and that the content I write is as neutral (as defined in WP) as possible. My directness offends some people. That is too bad. But I have not attacked you nor did I state that you have violated COI. It doesn't help you to misrepresent other people. And carrying a grudge or conspiracy theories about admins is not helpful either. That really flags you as a fringey editor. Most admins are good eggs and they respond on the merits (when the merits are made clear in a concise way). I cannot comment on what happened at the deleted Talk page b/c I cannot see it, so there is no point bringing that up.
The situation as it was at the documentary article was really bad, with two inexperienced editors going at it and turning the talk page into a shambles. I was trying to tone things down all around so that we could all work together to fix it. So yes that made me tip-toe-y, to avoid things degenerating into chaos again. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"It doesn't help you to misrepresent other people. And carrying a grudge or conspiracy theories about admins is not helpful either. That really flags you as a fringey editor."
I never used the word "conspiracy," and your accusing me of having said anything like that amounts to a Straw Man argument on your part. That makes YOU the one misrepresenting "other people."
I did complain about SOME Admins that have misused their powers. I gave you one very good example when Orange Mike did a wholesale revert of my numerous and well-thought-out edits in a Wiki article that was finally deleted because it not only had no verifying cites, as required (for over 7 years!), but was also a massive copyright/plagiarism article to boot. Orange Mike did not even give a reason in his edit summary, or on the talk page, why he did that massive revert of my conscientious edits. Later, he tried to justify doing so on the basis of what I MIGHT do, sometime in the future, because he read articles at my website.
You and I both know there have been times when some Admins have abused their powers and that some have even lost their Admin privileges as a result. So, my pointing out that SOME Admins do abuse, was accurate and it is a gross distortion to categorize my saying so, as being proof that I have advanced any kind of conspiracy theory, OR that I am a "fringey" editor, because of my legitimate complaints about how SOME admins have acted.
"My directness offends some people. That is too bad."
But of course, it is OK for you to be direct, but when someone else like me does the same, then you can lecture me about "tendentious" editing. It is very important to you that I do not offend, but no such concern by you for yourself. ("do as I say, not as I do"...)
You really need to go over what you have said about me, Jytdog (talk). You are doing the very same thing that you have (falsely) accused me of, namely misrepresenting "other people."
YOU are misrepresenting ME, right here on my talk page. You attempted, with a long, condescending lecture, to make it appear I was using Wikipedia to install links to my website in numerous Wiki ARTICLES. You didn't actually say I was doing that, but you did create that kind of innuendo simply by saying this to the entire world:
"The first thing I want to say is general and not about the aerotoxic article - namely, please refrain from citing your own website when you edit. I did a search in Wikipedia for links to it - here are the results. I don't know if you added those links/refs or someone else did, but if it was you, please don't do that going forward, per WP:SELFCITE. Thanks."
You have got to understand human nature enough to know that many will take such a statement to mean I actually did what you felt compelled to lecture me to NOT do. If you could not be bothered to check each link out, to find out who actually posted them, then how can you expect others to do that?
Your "carrying a grudge" comment really amounts to another lecture to me that I should not protest or defend myself when ones like you and one other Admin, hastily misjudged me as acting contrary to Wiki Policy. When in fact, my judgment was right on target -- that they were COI editors who were using Wikipedia to Spam/Promote their film and bogus medical theory, along with the websites that were trying to advance that political agenda -- EVEN THOUGH there was a very long history of their doing that over and over and over again, on the Aerotoxic Syndrome talk and rev-hist pages.
That Admin even had the audacity to state that Screwjack1981 was acting in good faith!! Which, if that had been a true and accurate assessment of all the facts, would mean it was wrong for you and that Admin to proceed to get Screwjack1981 banned indefinitely...
To your credit, both you and that Admin, with the help of another expert, continued to investigate that COI editor until you proved my judging him as NOT acting in good faith, was correct and I was certainly justified in reverting his repeated acts of vandalizing that article.
I tried to thank you and that Admin for following up and finally putting a stop to that COI/SPAM editing, but you removed that too... I suppose because those links clearly vindicated what I did to try and stop that COI/SPAM and that the subsequent actions of you and that admin, proved my judgment of him was accurate. It also demonstrated you both were hasty in taking the side of Screwjack1981 and condemning me for violating 3rr, when in fact I was legitimately complying with the policy stated in WP:VANDAL, in regards to the sneaky type of vandalism.
Not only did you remove that, I see no apologies from any of you. Instead, you think it proper to lecture me about not doing the very kind of thing you are doing to me now. Pardon me if I interpret that as just another tactic to cover up your hasty and unjust judgements of me and my very proper edit activity in the best interests of Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia.
I changed the word because I thought "gliding" was synonymous with unpowered flight, the aircraft in question had its engine running during the incident and therefore could not be gliding. But I see by the dictionary definition that I was wrong - TIL.
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting inappropriately and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really would appreciate your answering my request for a link. I just now put my IP number in a search box, but nothing comes up. [[13]] EditorASC (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot get any response from Administrator Cabayi (talk). I need to know when and where I might have made the error alleged. I was not able to find it by searching my IP number. Thanks, EditorASC (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way I can assume good faith with the kind of vicious, false allegation statements and treatment I have received. Please stay off my Talk Page. Your meaningless statements are not appreciated by me. EditorASC (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On closer look, that's just how the template is designed to inform users they may have forgotten to log in. El_C13:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then change that damn, vicious, vile, disgusting template!!! That "MAY HAVE" crap is a lie, a damn lie, a FALSE LIE and you all KNOW that. Putting that kind of unmitigated garbage on my Talk Page amounts to a deliberate punishment for the "crime" of being a totally innocent victim of a vile, unethical Editor like Manning. And please don't insult my intelligence with more of that "Assume Good Faith" puke again. That has the equivalent validity of Clinton's "It depends on what 'IS' is,'" and "I did not have sex with that woman!" EditorASC (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to tone it down — I won't ask you again. Avoid the word "lie" as it, indeed, assumes bad faith. Again, you need to conduct yourself with greater moderation. If you find that you are unable to at a given moment, just take a break from this. El_C20:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you and the rest of you need to comply with the BLP rules, which includes this statement:
"...it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."
All of you have violated that policy by putting this false, lying garbage on my Talk Page, which you all KNOW amounts to an ongoing LIE! I DID NOT fail to sign in on any of my posts and you KNOW THAT. And I did not use IPs in Great Britain as SOCK PUPPETS to make additional edits in that article, and YOU KNOW THAT TOO!!!
Thus the statement that I "May Have" amounts to nothing less than a DELIBERATE LIE. Yet, you insist upon keeping that LIE against my good name on this page. It is YOU that are in the wrong here, so quit your hypocritical lectures. I will NEVER respond to such lectures like a whipped dog that can no longer stand the humiliation. YOU are NOT my better, simply because you got appointed as an ADMIN. I don't give a damn if you don't like my telling the truth about all of you. I place a much higher value upon the concept of "TRUTH" than I do upon your approval or disapproval of my very honest thinking. Do what you will; I will NOT sell my own self respect for your thirty pieces of Silver. I have no respect left for you and your kind and I don't give a damn about your next step of retaliating against me for my "Crime" of telling it like it really is! EditorASC (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for lapses in civility and good faith (after warning). You are free to remove anything you wish from your own talk page, but these rants and uncivil exclamations are not helpful. Again, to better advance the substance of your argument, please consider conducting yourself with greater moderation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:6308-DisneyLandHotelMonorailStation.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:6308-DisneyLandMonoRail-ParkStation.jpg){kind=link}