User talk:PontiusPilot

Percival Mew Gull comments

Your recent comment on this page may be a well-meaning response to edits that were made recently but it is not acceptable to insult others even in a "comment" and contravenes the intentions and tenets of Wikipedia use. I believe you are a newcomer to Wikipedia and may not be familiar with some of its conventions. You may not have realized that your comment indicates that you are acting inappropriately.

There are "five pillars" of Wikipedia contributions. Briefly (or not so briefly), they are:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of encyclopedias, striving for accuracy with "no original research."
• Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources.
• Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.
• Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general "pillars."
• Wikipedia has a code of conduct:
  • Respect your fellow Wikipedians
  • Be civil
  • Be open and welcoming
  • Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations
  • Stay cool when the editing gets hot
  • Avoid edit wars
  • Act in good faith and assume good faith on the part of others
  • Follow the three-revert rule
  • Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

In reviewing your latest comment, it is evident that you are not acting in good faith as a Wikipedian. You have contravened all five general "guides" to conduct and your comment is considered a personal attack per wiki rules. Calling people names is unconscionable and will result in administrative consequences to limit or deny you rights to edit Wikipedia. Treat my comments as well-meaning yet illustrative request to adhere to the tenets of this forum.Bzuk 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Anorak crap

Knock it off. Would you listen to somebody making stupid comments like that? Even if what you're arguing is correct, nobody's going to care. ericg ✈ 01:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see some real information being contributed on obscure subjects and as the result of some knowledge and research. On the other hand, petty, ignorant and childish word swapping contributes nothing to advance available knowledge. About what we would expect from one self-important enough to have created their own personal Wiki page..... Yuck.

I appreciate your background knowledge but when you engage in the type of edit wars that you have started and continue to hurl personal insults, this will result in your restriction from editing Wikipedia. Bzuk 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

You should have thought of that when you started with your childish idiotic editing pattern. I don't having mind real errors editing out, isn't that the purpose of Wiki..? However, - Wiki and Joe public benefit from knowledge, not incessant inane word-swapping. Go ahead, ban me and delete all my contributions. What will you be left with? Factual innacuracies and SFA but a collection of commas and very scanty tired facts. It seems your ego far outweighs your actual contribution. Fact versus ego. Umm, - tough one.

Final warning before blocking

You've already been asked to be civil, but are still leaving comments like this in edit summaries. The very next time I see you make a disparaging or belittling remark, I will block you from editing. This would be a pity, because you evidently have a lot of useful material to contribute. --Rlandmann 11:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Wiki's loss, not mine. However, instead of cutting-off your nose to spite me, why don't you look at bzuck? No one minds typos etc. sorting, but that man clearly doesn't know his subject, - but still INSISTS on buggering-up others attempts to contribute. Your efforts are going in the wrong direction entirely.

No - this has nothing to do with content, and everything to do with treating others with respect even when we disagree with them. I don't think that this comment shows much civility, so I'm now blocking you as I said I would. It's customary for a first block to be short - so this is only 24 hours. If I see anonymous edits from you while not logged in, those IP addresses will also be blocked and your block will be extended. Please take this as an opportunity to reflect on how you would like to be treated if a more knowledgable person were correcting you on some subject. --Rlandmann 20:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits

Let me be one of the first to welcome you back. As you can deduce from earlier comments made by myself and other editors, your contributions indicate a strong background in aeronautical technology and history especially in the topics in which you have submitted information. Your latest edits in the Edgar Percival saga have exhibited the type of collaborative and supportive work that Wikipedia has been formulated to provide. Your new revisions are now making this article a much more comprehensive and authoritative article. Keep it up, this is now a prime example of how collaborative editing can take place. Bzuk 12:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Latest Percival Mew Gull edits

Please do look at some of the recent history of the edits. I am completely in favour of revisions to the article and will begin a discussion string to establish a rationale for the changes. Please read my comments above; the quality and authoritative contributions of your submissions are appreciated, but be aware that working on Wikipedia requires a cooperative effort. FWIW, any additional help on the topic of the life and lore re: Amelia Earhart would also be greatly appreciated. Bzuk 18:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC). _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I keep my contributions on Wiki to minimum, as whilst I may have opinions of varying strengths about many of the articles, I don't have enough specialist knowledge to write with any real any authority, not to mention the spare time. My original intervention/contribution to the Mew article was driven simply by the fact that the inaccuracies contained were leaking out into the wider world. An irritation indeed. The existing article could be expanded twenty-fold, but would probably make pretty dry reading for those outside the real hard-core enthusiasts, and would serve only to obscure the important basic data. As an article primarily aimed at public consumption, I take the view that accuracy and clarity are the most important factors. If readers wish to delve into the lives of the many (Often quite fascinating, but also obscure) participants, then there are many books as well as Wiki itself. I was well aware of the details of Penrose's involvement, and the circumstances surrounding it. I included a brief mention originally, as it has some relevance to the chronology of that example ('XF.). I seems clear to me, that dropping-in a whole section of Alex' Henshaw's revised 'Flight of the Mew Gull' autobiography does not really come under 'type history', superb though that book is. At the very least, there must be a better place for that narrative. This is especially so, as 'XF wasn't the only example of type, merely one of six, and so much verbiage about a single example throws the section out of balance. Yes, 'XF has become the most well-known since the late 1970's, but in their heyday, the other examples were very well-known and famous. Concise and relevant I like. Aimless verbiage I do not. Incidentally, the mention of the Kings Cup, it's content and placing also fall under this category.

As for the Earhart article; There is a clear lack of ability of some of the contributors to discriminate between real facts, hearsay, and opinions. I took a good look at the TIGHAR site after reading some of the Wiki on Earhart. The TIGHAR people don't seem to have turned up a single shred of real tangible evidence whatever to support their hypotheses for Gardner Island. Just a handful of crap that could have belonged to anyone, either washed-up, left by a visiting yacht or from the known shipwreck. That doesn't mean to say that they can't possibly be right. Just that the evidence is not even circumstantial and is overshadowed hugely by the known aeronautical facts. There are a number of theories of varying credibility, but the basic facts tell all one really needs to know. I would surmise that many of the advocates of the more imaginative theories are not pilots..... Anyone who has flown for a few years will know what I mean. Many of the theorists are obsessed with the idea that there is a 'mystery', - when in fact there is none whatever. E&N simply pushed the limits of the technology and their abilities - and paid the price. Boring to some maybe, - but pretty scary if you have been even a mere 100nm from a body of land in a 1930's a/c, even WITH GPS, - let alone looking for a tiny islet in the vastness of the worlds largest ocean on DR (>shudders<..!). Even if any evidence were found, as to the exact location of their machine, what difference would it really make? Not one jot, except to end the pointless speculation. Their kite lies within a calculable area of uncertainty, and that's all one needs to know. The seemingly endless panoply of theories could all be listed - and readers could be directed off-site if they wish to indulge their interests in these theories. PPPontiusPilot 07:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

--PontiusPilot 09:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)==Comments== Please re-read the cautions noted above on this page. If you cannot work cooperatively in Wikipedia, you may wish to find some other diversion. FWIW Bzuk 02:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

The problem isn't Wikipedia; It's your myopic attitude. For you it's an obsession - a 'diversion' as you reveal. I'm just watching one article to try to ensure a load of balls isn't disseminated, whereas you manifestly spend most of your waking hours as an obsessed busybody. Get out in the sunshine. Its very theraputic. --PontiusPilot 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No PP, the problem is your foul mouth. You have been warned repeatedly to lay off on the personal attacks, and blocked as a result of past transgressions, but it seems it still hasn't convinced you to stop the name calling. I have blocked you for a period of 48 hours as a result of the above comments. Please take that time to reflect on whether or not your edits to an article about a historical aircraft are so important that you consider minor changes worthy of insulting people. You might want to consider taking your own advice. Maury 12:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a lame idea of what a 'foul mouth' is, lol. Is plain to see that Zuk gets his amigos when he can't handle fair critiscm. Predictable.--PontiusPilot 18:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You're response to being blocked is to insult the admins? This is your last warning, further examples of this sort of behaviour will result in this block being greatly extended in duration, perhaps permanently. Maury 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What insult...? It gets dafter. Out in the real world Wiki has a poor reputation for accuracy and attracting Anoraks. All this sort of inane stupidity does is to enhance that reputation. Bill Zuk consistently wades around in Wiki in a high-handed way. His arrogant attitude is provocative and he doesn't like it when people refuse to submit to his constant bullying. Especially when he is patently wrong. If that's not harassment, then I don't know what is. Application of Wikis rules here is very selective self-serving. Your illogical comments merely illustrate the point. PontiusPilot 09:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You are going around insulting people, myself included, and then complaining that you are being harassed? All we're asking you to do is act with Wikipedia:Civility. Is that really to much to ask? Maury 14:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting more and more like a Monty Python sketch ROFL. What insult to you ..????? 'Going round insulting people, - ' implies a plurality. (Is there more than one bzuk? Heaven forfend...!) So much for objectivity. --PontiusPilot 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What insult to you ..?

"Your illogical comments", "you have a lame idea", "All this sort of inane stupidity does","So much for objectivity"

I really don't appreciate being called "inanely stupid" or "illogical". As if that were not enough, you go on to continue to insult Bzuk as well...

"His arrogant attitude is provocative", "submit to his constant bullying"

This thread started because I will not accept any insulting language aimed at other editors. The reason, or lack of it in this case, is beside the point. It is against the rules, and if you can't play by the rules, then you don't get to play. So answer the question; is following the civility rule really too much to ask?

Maury 15:55, 8 September 2007

You seem to be very confused and are being transparently provocative. No sensible person would regard the above as insults, unless you wish to include calling someone 'foul-mouthed'... or doesn't that count...? No, of course not... silly me. Evidently you are very thin-skinned. You are also dishonestly misquoting my statements. I didn't call you "inanely stupid". It was a factual reference to the whole concept of this conversation arising out of, to quote you ' - edits to an article about a historical aircraft' - 'minor changes' etc. Simple innit. My comments about bzuk weren't insults - they were a factual observation. Evidently much to close to target... I don't need, nor will I accept any lessons in civility from either of you. All of this arises out of Bill Zuks attitude. If your radars switched-off that's your problem. Civility is fine, as long as it's genuine and people don't hide behind it. Twas a lovely sunny day today, - very happy to say I didn't spend it looking at a computer screen. PontiusPilot 03:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have made your position more than clear, as have I. Seeing as you have continued to needle and taunt throughout this thread, and now disown the entire problem, I don't think this is going to change any time soon. As a result I have extended your block. As always, you can contest this block by placing {{unblock}} at the top of this page. Maury 13:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You have merely served to make my point for me quite eloquently. For 'needle and taunt, how about 'Has the temerity to disagree'. Shucks though, - who would dare to contest you Gods of Wiki and such paragons of logical contemplation... More Wikis loss than mine. Kismet Aspidestra. --PontiusPilot 22:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)