User talk:Wiarthurhu/Archive 1

Wiki-Bullies and what really torques me about Wikipedia

And my apologies for the thousands of users who will miss List of famous failures in science and engineering which was nominated for deletion because and editor I am not allowed to say un-nice thing about was upset about my F-111 content.

WP is like a cross between a word processor, WWF wrestling, chess and paintball.

(actually a composite of two users, but mostly the *** who showed enough consideration for others to shoot down an entire WP article with aFD IED)

• People with no credentials who revert everthing I put as "vandalism".
• People who respond with "useless article" 93JC and "No one gives a shit about AMC toys, specifically, and then proceed to delete an article is somebody does care about, and is not useless.
• People who respond "I don't censor my comments for the protection of your virgin ears. Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits" 93JC
• People who call an editor with an MIT education, a room full of reference books and magazines who has read hundreds of articles in magazines and books since 1970 and been published in Aviation and many other newspapers as a freelance columnist as "misinformed crap" and "made up shit".
• People who believe they are more qualfied than Janes to determine if the F-14 is what Grumman and the US Navy called it in 1969, though they present no evidence of education, job, or having read or watched even one print or broadcast source, or writing experience outside of WP.
• People who act as guard dogs over articles, making it impossible to change the mistake, entered by Red Baron in March 06 that the F-14 was never designed to optimize maneuverability, and then have it mirrored across dozens of other encyclopedias, and then appear as the opinions of other users who used the WP as a reference too.
• People who consider Aviation Week, Janes, Flight International, the U.S. Navy home page, a Grumman VP and former F14 test pilot, Modern Marvels and Aero books to be unreliable sources.
• People who rely on only two sources that do not support his assertion, nor contradict my assertion, while he dismissed all web searched, newsgroups searches, white papers, books, magazine articles, or reverses the thesis of articles I have furnished to hoim.
• People who interpret the WP encouraging removal of uncited material as removing all material without convincing citations.
• People who write "removing POV" edits with express purpose of enforcing their POV.
• People who determine "I don't see mention of air superiority" in a single open source internet source means that it impossible for the F-14 to have ever been an air superiority fighter, and then use a paper that names the F-14 as one of 4 air superiority fighters as proof the F-14 is not an air superiority fighter.
• Sore losers who nominate a page to articles for deletion built over a year by dozens of editors because I finally showed him proof the F-14 was called an air superiority fighter in Flight International 1969 at the Seattle Public Library stacks, long before the F-15, and he found my contribution to the F-111 there, and the co-conspirators who second the nomination who have never before seen or used this page.--matador300 18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The WP not only permits, but encourages this sort of behavor. Am I the only guy that feels this way about this wiki-madness? --matador300 18:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Guys

Sign here if you think these practices are appalling, and pledge to never treat other editors in this way.

• I agree with you. QuizQuick 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, you seem like an awesome person. Too bad some people try to denounce you. You went to MIT? That's cool. QuizQuick 03:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not simply revert edits

Geez, this place is like a place where everybody goes around knocking down other people's sandcastles with all sorts of lame justification such as "I don't like it".

From the rules:

Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUX0RZ", or someone changing "6+5*2=16" to "6+5*2=17"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk.

Do the whole gnarly Nash Hudson AMC Eagle timetable, it would be great! Then, you could leave out the musings out of the articles, and the template would just say it all. I am actually thinking of doing one or a few Simca/Rootes Group/Chrysler Europe/Talbot template(s), which would present a similar situation, and I have one good idea for it - why not mark the models (and, in some cases, model years) offered under different marques and different owners with different colours? An example of this being done with regard to something else is here. I hope I didn't make it too confusing :D

Anyway - do the template, it would be great! Have fun with it! Bravada, talk - 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Are You That Guy?

A better approach to your question would be to search the page history on the Matador and find out by comparing previous page versions. Going around asking people if they're the offenders is a tad militant. However, to answer your question: having checked the page history, I see that I have made only one edit recently, and it was relatively minor (relation to citations). Anyway, good luck with editing. -Litefantastic 02:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

F-14

Why don't you provide your source and respond to the criticisms on Talk:F-14 Tomcat?. --Mmx1 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you go to a great deal of trouble stating your opinion of people who delete referenced material, and their references, yet you did just that today on the F-14 page. You removed an entire chapter relating to the plane's use by the Iranian Air Force, as well as all the research and reference material accompanying it. This material had already undergone a discussion on the "talk" page before the chapter was updated and the added information was the result of that discussion. You did not participate in the discussion, but chose to remove the information leaving nothing of value afterwards. You need to reexamine your own philosophy about deleting other users material.--Ken keisel

Oops, I thought I moved it to another article. Will fix. The F-14 page is too big to put all these short articles into one big article. Thank for noticing my rants anyways. --matador300 20:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

List of famous failures

Wiarthurhu, what exactly did you do with List of famous failures in science and engineering? Did you copy and paste its content to List of famous science and engineering projects considered to be failures? That is not how you move a page. To move a page you must use the "move" tab at the top of the screen. What you've done lost the edit history for the page, and it's lost the connection to the AFD. While I don't believe the article should be deleted (I voted keep), what you've done here is deceptive and against Wikipedia policy. TomTheHand 16:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous successes in science and engineering

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I thought I was just cleaning up. Sorry about that. --matador300 21:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

How about you stop editing while we wait for mediation?

Don't take my lack of editing as implied assent to your edits. I'm merely waiting for a mediator to come in and resolve this so we don't muck up 10 different talk page and their histories by edit warring. So how about it? A truce until mediation is completed? --Mmx1 16:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My answer is on the F-14 page. Do some homework before you try editing again. BTW, you completely botched the air superiority fighter and McNamara article. Please ask me before you deface more of the WP again, I can give you hints on how not to ruin things. --matador300 00:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

F-14 scans

Magazines are copyrighted not public domain, just because you scanned them doesn't mean you hold the copyright. Please use images that illustrate the subject of the article and are decent quality. Scans from books where you can see the fold in the book are not what I call high quality. You might also want to change the licenses on those images to reflect that they are copyrighted and add a fair use rationale to them. --Dual Freq 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:HPIM1293.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:HPIM1293.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

List of 1971 cars with specifications

Hi Wiarthurhu, I'm afraid that the consensus is for the list to be removed and merged with other articles. I already merged the information with the relevant articles and I provided enough article history that the original list can be deleted. As an AfD closer, I just carry out the consensus, and in the AfD for the list, the consensus was pretty clear to merge this content. --Deathphoenix ? 13:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That was actually my original intent, though I also believe the WP could use many tables like this. If that were the case, I would be happy to add the Ford and Chrysler tables from that same issue, and also look up other years. Did you therefore also merge the AMX/3, or create a new article for it??--matador300 14:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1 hates me again=

User:Wiarthurhu]](identifies himself as matador300) is going around pushing is biased and misinformed reconstruction of history. Take a peek at the histories of the F-14 Tomcat and its talk page. I've stopped edit warring with him to try to go for mediation but no mediators have bit yet. He's got some serious POV issues, doesn't understand or care about wiki principles A source is a source. Not being reliable is only a problem if it's wrong, and sometimes even reliable sources can be wrong (from his talk page). The mediation is supposed to take care of it all, but I don't think it'll go forward. I'm trying to seek some admin action here but no admins seem to be willing to get involved in content disputes. --Mmx1 16:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

I got your message, and no, your edits were completely POV. Like for the AMC Pacer "But it doesn't look too bad today parked next to a Chevrolet Malibu Maxx" That is POV. And instead of leaving me a mess on my talk page, please tell me what your beef is, and sign your comment. Karrmann 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Curse you, Red Baron! Mmx1 has killed famous scientific failures! You Bastards! =

Congratulations, Mmx1 you've managed to destroy another good Wikpedia Article and the work and compilation of hundreds of contributors. Remember the bad guys always get it in the end, and I'll alway be on Snoopy's side.

Of the 7 keep votes (discounting duplicate votes), one was "it's edited a lot", two were "but this article was kept", three were "it's interesting", and one was "it's been around for over a year". The (12) editors arguing 'delete' made arguments related to its inherent POV, citing WP:NPOV, a lack of sources (WP:RS), and the subjectiveness of the subject and its title. I judge the arguments for deletion to outweight those to keep

List of famous failures in science and engineering

User_talk:Proto Are you deleting this or voting to delete it? This a a tragedy because the goal of Mmx1 is to destroy all of my WP contributions, and he cited my F-111 contribution as a reason to destroy the work of months by dozens of editors because it is like hundred of similar lists that attempt to list "good" or "bad" items. That it is uncited doe not mean that citations cannot be found, and I was in the process of adding citations of people who thought these projects were failures. Does the WP always work this? In order piss off somebody else, all I have to do it is nominate for AFD and the wiki-deleters will do the rest????? What a system.. How can I retrieve for future reference? --matador300 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

See below - a copy has been placed at User:Wiarthurhu/List. Proto///type 10:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Calm

I'm sorry to hear that you're upset with another user, and that you feel WP is not properly appreciative of your qualifications. I'll look into the situation later today, okay? DS 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks --matador300 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC). WP is a fine piece of work if not for all the jerks who wreck it for everybody else.

List of failures

Hi. I have put a copy of the list you asked for at User:Wiarthurhu/List. If the article seems messed up, it might need some reverting. The cut and paste page note kind of messed up the edit history. If the article is significantly different (i.e,, is sourced and has a little less subjectiveness), there's nothing preventing recreation. My job is just to ascertain the consensus of an AFD. Proto///type 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

any way to dig up a non-empty article?? --matador300 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is now fixed. User:Wiarthurhu/List. All the best! Proto///type 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"so what do you think?"

What do I think about what? Concerning List of unpopular tactics on Wikipedia, I just don't think this article should be in the main namespace. It's specifically about an aspect of Wikipedia, rather than a general encyclopedia entry. I don't know where it should go exactly, but you could put it in your user space or it could go to the Wikipedia namespace (Wikipedia:List of unpopular tactics on Wikipedia), as someone else suggested. Philbert^2.71828 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

F-5 legacy

You are correct that the F-5 design evolved into the F-18, but I do not think that it should be said in that way. The information is stated elsewhere in the article, and I personally don't think that sentence was especially necessary. It was just a little redundant in my opinion. And on another note, I take it you put two and two together when it came to my username. LWF 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

I'm CQJ, and I'm an unofficial mediator with the Mediation Cabal. I'm not sure if you knew or not, but there's a request for us to help you guys out with the F-14 article. If you would leave me a message at my talk page whether or not it's okay that we help you out as soon as you could, I'd appreciate it. There's also a case page working at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05_F-14_Tomcat that we might use as well. Thanks! CQJ 07:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

F-14

Thanks for helping out. If you can convince Mmx1 that two 1969 Flight International articles that name the F-14 as "the VFX air superiority fighter" and explain that the F-14 was designed to be agile, we're done. My primary problem is that he believes he can and does instantly revert (well, within 10 min) any edit, even if cited from Janes Defence ($1,400 annual subscription) that he believes is unreliable, which just about anything. He has zero direct citations, he constructs understanding on the basis of indirect facts, and has zero respect for credentials or experience of any kind, he believes that his judmement is infallible. I have actually found at least 3 other persons who have similar positions on the topic, but it can be shown to be factually false by the existence of these 1969 articles. --matador300 17:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

Hm. Let me discuss that with you briefly. I'm an unofficial mediator acting on behalf of the Mediation Cabal, and it's my job to mediate the dispute, not to convince one editor or the other that he or she is wrong or right. I do not make or enforce rulings, nor will I attempt to do so. I am merely seeking to get you two to a compromise or consensus in the matter before the matter escalates to higher dispute resolution methods such as arbitration.

I have made some notes to both of your recent edits at the case page, asked some questions, and pointed some things out that you both may wish to consider. I see that you made a comment to the 'compromise offer' section but did not state whether or not you were willing to accept the current compromises on the table. At your earliest convenience, would you please go back there, take a look at the four compromises that I've listed and comment appropriately?

Also, I usually don't check other talk pages for comments back to me. I would greatly appreciate it if you'd leave messages back to me at my talk page (since that's the only thing that gives me the little flag telling me that I have new messages :-). Don't worry, I feel like we're on the right track, if I didn't, I'd let you know. CQJ 01:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have submitted to you and Mmx four content compromises. Please review them and either accept or reject them at your convenience. CQJ 19:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia strategy

Hi there. I found your 'Wikipedia strategy' article, and while it'sw quite fun, it's obviously in the wrong place. Rather than move it for you can I suggest that you move it either to your personal space or to the Wikipedia namespace. Oh, and maybe you could add 'polite requests to move' to the strategy list? ;-) DJ Clayworth 14:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see you've already had a request to move this, and instead you just changed the name. Is that another strategy to add? DJ Clayworth 14:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how that works, but I thought up a much less provacative title. Add to it if you know of other dirty WP tricks.--matador300 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I saved a copy of your strategy. Would you like to see it again? QuizQuick 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:F-14ConceptOil.jpg

I noticed that you cropped Image:HPIM1293.jpg and ran it through a Photoshop filter, then uploaded it as Image:F-14ConceptOil.jpg, claiming that it is an "oil painting interpretation" of the magazine image and is public domain. I don't even know what to say to you. I've listed the image in question on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. For goodness sake, respect copyrights and don't do this deceptive stuff. TomTheHand 17:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is promotion from Grumman / Navy anyway, equivalent to a promotional picture of a Ford Mustang under fair use, in any case chance of problems from Northrop Grumman are zero. Cropping eliminates content from Flight Magazine, they would own the screen printing pattern, which is obscured by the image process. --matador300 14:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

Ok, how do you know it's a promotional photo by Grumman or the Navy? The caption says it's an artist's impression of Grumman's submission, but it does not state what artist, and you cannot assume that it's ok.

I'm updating the image's description to remove the "oil painting intepretation" deception. TomTheHand 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: stuff

How about not duplicating content across 15 different pages, many of them irrelevant? I'm not sure the aircraft casting needs to be on the Top Gun page but i'll leave it to someone else to delete it. Going on about irrelevant details about the planes is, which is what i deleted. I'm also about to trim the intro to the AMRAAM, it's about one particular missile, not the history of US AAM's.

Re: Tomcat retirement, What is this, a conspiracy theory? Fashion? There are very good reasons that nobody's procuring swing-wings. They're heavy, are necessarily small, can't carry ordnance without special pylons, and the only aircraft that really need them are those that absolutely require a high dash speed. The Russians are widely considered to have the most aerodynamically perfect designs in current usage (U.S. and western designs are compromised by low-observability concerns) - there's not a swing-wing in their current arsenal. I doubt they're subject to the "hornet mafia".

The F-14 not the most capable air-superiority fighter - the F-15 is undeniably superior in most respects, particularly the turning fight, and the Russian fans would all beg to differ with the Su-27/30,etc variants. The Phoenix is not all it's cut out to be. It was designed to hit bombers with little terminal maneuverability or dumb cruise missiles with no maneuvering capability. At the end of its flight profile it had no fuel, was coasting on kinetic energy, and had no energy to purse terminal maneuvers. Against a fighter it was next to useless. The only confirmed combat usage in the U.S. was in the Gulf War, both resulting in misses.

High maintenance hours are not a "lame reason". The Hornet was designed with maintainability in mind and is able to maintain much higher availablity than the Tomcat. A pretty plane does you no good sitting on the ramp - something armchair generals don't notice but officers do.

You have completely the wrong picture W.R.T. the Super Hornet; it is not a replacement of the vanilla Hornet but a complement. The Navy needed a replacement for the high part of the hi-low mix and considered upgrades of the F-14 and F-18; the compromises resulting from the dead fleet air defense mission were too much; the F-18 is one of them most maneuverable U.S. aircraft and the Super Hornet is a much better balanced mix and far superior to any "Super Tomcat" (which would have been heavier). Many analysts agree with you that it's a very capable plane; on par with the latest Su-27 versions, and would see a lot more sales if it didn't fall between acquisition cycles for many countries, including the Air Force - many nations (UK particularly) are eyeing it as a JSF fallback. And ironically, the range and payload are a result of the swing-wing mechanism and interception mission that compromised its maneuverability. You criticize the Super Hornet for being too light while admiring its maneuverability. You might want to realize it's lighter for a reason.--Mmx1 22:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the Super Hornet is probably suitable for replacing all US fighter aircraft, if you're willing to accept some performance / cost tradeoffs. What's nuts is that it's nearly as heavy and more expensive than the F-14, which pretty much blows up the idea for a Hornet in the first place as a LWF. The F-14 is a much better bombing, EW, and tanker platform because of its size and swing wings, but nobody in the Navy had that much imagination. Go ahead and trim the AMRAAM, but what should be there is enough background to appreciate why it was needed - it gives you Phoenix fire and forget in a package compatible with Sparrow that you can hang on any fighter in the inventory bigger than a Harrier. Do a decent job and I won't say nasty things about you. --matador300 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

Time out.

I see that there's more going on than I anticipated and that this dispute has spread from F-14 articles to other aircraft and related articles.

It seems that the trend on this article is continuing elsewhere.

So I must ask you very nicely, but very firmly.

Please stop editing any article having to do with aircraft, things you shoot from aircraft, or anything that otherwise flies. We've got enough to deal with as it is.

Thanks. CQJ 22:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That may or may not be the case.

However, I've asked you to stop editing any article having to do with aircraft, things that you shoot from aircraft, or anything else that otherwise flies due to the fact that there's about five or ten articles that we already have to work on surrounding the F-14 dispute. I can't tell where it stops with both of you running around adding more content to different articles out of the scope of the current dispute, not to mention trading comments back and forth like I've asked you not to do prior to today. CQJ 00:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know how he ends up on my pages, Top Gun movie of all places.... At least he's not touching my collectible toy pages yet.--matador300 00:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

F-18

See below.. Superbug was never designed to replace the F-14. They just threw a less capable plane because that's all they have becuase that's what they blew their budget on. They might as well replace the F-14 with the Phantom. --matador300 01:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll put in this one comment because I'd like to forestall this F-18 misconception before it ends up in another content dispute. By the way, did it ever occur to you that since I have an interest in aviation, I just might have the same articles on my watchlist?

So, you've accepted that the F-18 is a better dogfighter than the F-14 and ask why a variant of the latter is replacing it? The F-14 carries all the baggage of its fleet air defense mission, and while it was pushed into other roles such as escort and CAS, it was not as capable at them as other aircraft - owing to the size and weight that were compromises to its fleet defense mission. I've already explained why the Phoenix is obsolete.

The Super Hornet is a design that compromises some of the F-18's maneuvering abilities (mostly because of the weight increase, partially due to the low-observable) to

• add low-observable features (rudimentary stealth shaping)
• increase its range and payload to facilitate its CAP and strike missions to bring it on par with the lost capability from the F-14 and A-6.

The result is a fighter that is marginally less maneuverable than the Hornet but still vastly superior to the F-14 in a turning fight.

I find it ironic that you're harping on the range and payload characteristics of the F-14 that are legacies of its interception mission. It's an expensive design, requires many more man-hours in maintenance (which are not finite...unless you'd like to volunteer?), meaning less hours in the sky, has no reduced signature features. The former is not insignificant. A marginally more effective aircraft is not more effective if it's not available to perform its missions.

The current F-14 airframes had to be retired, there's no question about that. They're too old and are at the end of their service lives. I'm talking about the physical airframes, not the design - pulling g's, catapult launches, carrier traps, all induce stress on metal, and it's only a matter of time before parts start to fail - hence the service life and g limitations. The g limitation is there to extend the service life - you can exceed it if your life depends on it; but if you do so on a training hop, boy will your maintenance section be pissed. The quickstrike F-14D upgrades were scrapped because they were investing millions in upgrades on old airframes that were on the tail end of their service lives. Like putting a beautiful house on a failing foundation - you're throwing the money away. Even our (A/C variant) Hornets are wearing out quickly as they've been used far more than expected after we dropped the carrier contingent of Tomcats from 2 squadrons to 1 - the Navy's had to switch airframes with the Marines as the latter don't go to the carrier as often and consequently their airframes are less stressed. Still, that could put us in a bind if the JSF is delayed. But I digress

So the Navy was faced with the task of replacing the "high" part of its hi-low mix; as well as compensating for the loss of long-range strike with the A-6. It needed to buy new airframes, but didn't have the money for a whole new acquisition program, so rather than start from scratch they asked for developments to existing designs. Since the Tomcat production line had long closed down, buying new ones was out of the question - so it was down to a resdesign of existing airframes - the F-14, the F-18, or the A-6. Clearly the A-6 would have made a bad choice. The F-18 was much more in line with later thinking about maneuverability and made a better base platform for upgrades. The F-14, on the other hand, was a massive interceptor that lugged Phoenix missiles around for 20 years with nobody to shoot them at.

The Super Hornet is widely considered the most balanced and modern design in the U.S. inventory (it does have the latest avionics and will be among the first to get AESA radars) and the most likely match for the later Su-30 upgrades (especially the MKI that the Indians keep bragging about). --Mmx1 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into it, it's just one big screw up. The F-18 is always written up as better than the previous hornet. No press release has ever compared the Super Hornet with the F-14, which has about double the range payload for only about 10,000 extra weight. The Hornet was supposed to replace the A-7, when the A-12 died, the Super Hornet was to replace the A6, even though the F-14 is a better all-weather long range bomber. The Navy simply wasn't serious about replacing the F-14 with a F-22 variant, and word is the F-18E just sucked up money from so mamy programs, somebody strategically decided that it was just going to replace everything whether the Tomcat people thought it was stupid or not. Cheney ordered tooling for the F-14 destroyed, there is no sense at all in scrapping what is the best overall fighter bomber in the world even right now. I've scanned the internet, there is not one person, or one article that claims the Super Hornet is more capable than the Tomcat, only that it is more capable than a plane that is not flying. And that's a darned shame, and I see where your POV is coming from. There is no F-14 replacement, only a grown up Hornet. And that's all, we're supposed to knock it off now. BTW, your rearwards missle change makes sense now, but it looks experimental. --matador300 00:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And BTW BTW, talking about old tired technology, you do realize the Super Hornet is just a blown up Hornet which is a blown up YF-17 which is a blown up P300 Cobra which is a resigned ......1950s F-5 entry level fighter (read Pinto / Gremlin / Yugo) with a really long root wing extension and twin tails??? The F-14 was always a top of the line big airplane, like the Plymouth Superbird of 1970 (that hasn't been topped since either) --matador300 00:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Show me one source that claims the F-14 is a better dogfighter than anything in the teen series. Or any of the russian Mig-29 Su-27 variants. What happened to your assertion that maneuverability was the most important aspect of a fighter? Double range/payload is wrong, the numbers I've seen are close to 20-30% over the Super Hornet, not 100%. The "best fighter bomber" is pure fantasy. It can't go to something that is the worst dogfighter in the current U.S. arsenal. In the American arsenal that title would probably go to the F-15E (the K version or Israeli upgrades are even more interesting).

R-73R, It was a developed technology, but like most recent Russian ideas, not adopted. I think it's a silly niche idea- rearward mounted missile can't be used offensively, and only really makes sense for strike packages. The modern short range AAM's all don't require a tail lock, nor require the target to be in the front quadrant (have you seen the Aim-9x videos?), so there's no real need for a dedicated rear-facing AAM

Again with the less capable plane, based on what? Range and Payload, by some 30%. The F-18E is a better dogfighter (undisputed), has a lower radar signature, newer avionics, and higher mission availability. Less capable...according to who other than Tomcat pilots? --Mmx1 01:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm excuse me Mmx1, please show me proof that the Super Hornet is better than the F-14D in a dogfight. Anyway if you had the phoenix why would you go dogfighting anyway if you have a range (and first look - first kill) advantage? BTW Go to the U.S. Navy website and you will see that the Navy considers the Super Hornet as an "ATTACK aircraft that could be used as a fighter". Higher mission availability rates can and have been achieved with other platforms in wartime, regardless of how easy or hard it is to maintain in the first place. Lower radar signature? Hilarious! Why? Makes no difference at all when you are still carrying stores externally. Low Observability measures on the Super Hornet were a waste of money, when you have stand-off munitions that can be launched outside the envelop of the latest double-digit SAM's. Newer avionics? Please specify?Caracal1 17:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at this

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-5.htm - Equivalent to a navalized F-15C Superbug is a nice typical modern combat aircraft, but does not have top-end range or performance specs of F-14, loaded out it's dirty like crazy while Tomcat has clean wings even fully bombed up. I've seen lots of people speculate the F-14 should be a terrible dogfighter, but all reports are that the F-14D is good enough to beat anything out there, and the F-14a is still pretty good . You show me a reference that the F-14 is substantially deficient in the dogfight performance it was designed for. --matador300 17:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh... so the Super Hornet's range and payload are comparable to the F-15C, as the article states...(longer range, tad heavier) No mention of the F-14 in comparison. The F-14 is deficient in thrust-weight ratio and wing loading, as pointed out by the engineers on the F-14 talk page. It's not a terrible dogfighter but it is not on par with the rest of the teen series or their Russian counterparts and the difference is quite clear - some 30-40%, not a few percentage points. --Mmx1 20:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't what to hear what you think. Give me 3 direct quotes from anybody flat out stating the F-14 is not competitive in a dogfight. That's a source. --matador300 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

VNAF

My uncle was a pilot in the VNAF. My dad was in the ARVN. My other uncle was a MP. So my family is really connected to the war, I just want to make sure they're properly represented. What about you?--Asteion 07:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My wife is Chinese from Saigon. I was just an American kid growing up in the 70s, was into the Vietnam air war, and I paid more attention than average to the VNAF. Some model kits are available in VNAF markings. --matador300 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Substantiating the Claims

You might do well to read the following compilation of viewpoints on the F-14 vs. F-18. Nobody says anything good about the F-14's maneuverability in trying to defend it. In fact...they really don't say anything about the F-14 except that the development money could have been better spent and that the Tomcat is faster and has longer range [1].

LCDR Alan D.Armstrong, who has flown both airframes

As far as classical fighter performance goes, our aviators (many of them ex-F-14 Tomcat aircrew) are always enthusiastic about fighting the F-14 because of the F/A-18's superior maneuverability and high AoA performance versus that of the Tomcat. Current tactical aviators understand that survivability and lethality are not simply a function of top-end speed (as it may have been back when Mr. Gillcrist was last in a tactical aircraft) but also of many other performance and installed-system characteristics. Survivability and lethality are much more sophisticated concepts than they were decades ago. The truth, from those who are staking their lives on it and not simply casting stones from the outside looking in, is that while the Super Hornet does have some deficiencies, it is still one of the most lethal and survivable tactical aircraft in the world today.

CDR C. W. Huff:

Let's not get carried away with maximum capability versus reality of configuring the F-14. The "normal" strike load-out is far less than that described. It is rare to launch from a carTier with a load that you cannot recover with. Each aircraft has a maximum recoverable weight, and as you add weapons, tanks and pods, there is less gas available to make a safe recovery. There are a variety of reasons for not expending ordnance: weather, aircraft/system problem, target availability, etc. It is not desirable to jettison perfectly good (and expensive) ordnance, so a compromise is made to meet the desired target damage, provide for additional mission requirements (i.e., air to air) and allow for approach/landing reserves.

On a sidenote, Spencer Rawlings contradicts the uncited claim in the F-14 article that it has superior landing characteristics to the F-14 Phantom.

It should be pointed out that the F/A-18 was procured to address two problems, neither of which has anything to do with war fighting capabilities. One was improved tamer-landing flying qualities, an area where the F-14 is not at its best The other was a reduction in maintenance man-hours required to keep the airplane operational. I cannot comment personally on the first, as I've never flown the F/A-18. I only remember how good the F-4 Phantom was coming aboard the USS Kennedy-speedy and directionally stable, two things the Tomcat wasn't Trusted individuals tell me that the F/A-18 does have good carrier-landing flying qualities. This characteristic should not be overlooked, as aircraft that require high pilot workloads in the landing approach, such as the F-14, present a higher level of concern regarding safety. We lost several F-14s during night carrier landings, due in part to the F-14's high workload in the power approach/landing configuration. I was a carrier air wing LSO (landing signal officer) during one of them.

Even GillChrist and Kress, the principal proponents of the Tomcat, do not defend its fighter abilities[2], arguing instead that the Tomcat should be kept for its "deep interdiction" capabilities. --Mmx1 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You sure have a way to reading the complete opposite of the point of an article. That article basically states that F-14 is a jillion times more aerodynamically efficient than any version of F-18, and the Super Hornet in particular is less agile than the original Hornet, which most F-14 problems don't believe they would have problems with since that plane is less agile than an F-16, as per original LWF competition. And I would hope that you appreciate that the Navy chose to replace the A6 with a plane with about half the range/payload of the F-14 if Kress is to be believed (the same guy on Modern Marvels who was in charge of the original design who you believe to be unqualified to state whether or not it was designed to maneuver, and who you believe yourself to be more qualified than to comment on fighter design) Most newsgroup posts seem to believe there was a "Hornet Mafia" that was just enamoured with this low cost lightweight fighter that bought a brand new plane just 10,000 lb lighter gross weight with half the payload. of the switchblade F-14. Objections to the F-14 appear to be mostly political and who had the best lobbyists, Boeing / McDac(where I live) was much more powerful than any starving Grumman, I'm inclined to believe this explanation. If the F-18 is indeed more agile (and I've seen no conclusive opinions on this, if you are so sure you should be able to cite some authority saying so) it would have made more sense to buy F-14s to replace the bombers and retain the Phoenix and keep the original F-18 for dogfighting at shorter ranges . --matador300 14:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Kress argues that it's more efficient in terms of fuel consumption. How exactly does that translate into maneuverability? Does Kress ever claim that explicitly? And how does F-18E < F-18 < F-16 (the last is debatable) mean the F-14 is more maneuverable, unless you think the F-14 is more maneuverable than the F-16, which nobody will back up? The F-16 has a bit more thrust and engine commonality with the F-15, but the F-18 has better high-AoA performance (the following comparison by a Navy Test pilot is interesting and fair to both platforms[3]).

Why the obsession with the Phoenix? Nobody believes it has any value today as it has poor terminal guidance and wouldn't be effective against any modern fighter. It's telling that in U.S. operational usage it's never scored a hit. --Mmx1 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is a Navy LCDR who has flown both airframes not authoritative enough? It's not a matter of Hornet and Tomcat pilots both saying their plane is more maneuverable than the other. Hornet pilots will readily say that their bird is a better dogfighter. Ask a Tomcat pilot about the virtues of their bird and they start talking about speed, range, how much better they are at CAS. They don't mention dogfighting (in comparison to other American airframes) or their Phoenix missile (unless you're a hot chick at a bar or a journalist that doesn't know any better). In front of their peers, they don't make any claims regarding maneuverability or the Phoenix because they know it's their weakness. --Mmx1 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting F-16 comparison, still it's not an F-14 comparison, and it's a daylight dogfight comparison, not a primary air superiority BVR or deep strike mission where the F-14's going to come out on top. Navy never did give up the fleet air defence mission, and we probably should have employed in for continental and homeland defence when we did have it. Still looking for in-as-many-words quote that F-14 was flat out not competitive with other teen series fighters in a dogfight. If a plane is twice as good in range payload, can shoot down targets at twice the range and is even 85% as good in a dogfight, which is going to do a better job of defending the flag? I'd still talk to a professional about that "I'm a better authority than Bill Gunston or Bob Kress" thing. --matador300 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What, is LCDR Armstrong not a source? because of the F/A-18's superior maneuverability and high AoA performance versus that of the Tomcat. The double range is a figment of your imagination. Even Kress quotes 500nm vs 350 nm, which is about 40% advantage, much closer to the 20-30% figures I've seen. And please, don't think the Phoenix is some sort of super-missile. It doesn't have the ability to hit any fighter at range; it was designed for bombers. The Navy didn't give up the fleet defense mission, but the Bears ceased to be a threat...oh...shortly after the Soviet Union died. --Mmx1 00:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User Conduct Request for Comment

I have filed a Request for Comment on you Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wiarthurhu. You are invited to respond Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wiarthurhu#Response. --Mmx1 05:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh goody --matador300 21:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC =

What's going on here? Just what do you want other than either one or both of us getting banished from WP?? Give me a list a demands, and I'll see what I can do --matador300 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Given[4], I find your contriteness...dubious. I would prefer if outside parties recommend the best course of action for both parties. I doubt the actions discussed rise to the level of bans...do you believe otherwise? --Mmx1 22:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had worse happen to me, in most places standing up for what you believe in has consequences. Anyways, what do you want that I might be able to give to you???? (short of your own Harrier jet...) --matador300 22:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What can you do about these things? I'm just wondering.

• Accept citations for what they are worth rather than dismissing Jane's All The World's Aircraft or Clarence Leonard "Kelly" Johnson as biased
• Use directly supporting sources
• Don't construct faulty positions based on omission
• Give the other person the benefit of the doubt
• Respect credentials
• Value the labor of others
• Read some print materials / visit a real library

Now your list?? --matador300 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Jane's 1970 describes the F-14 as "Emphasis has been placed on producing a comparatively small, lightweight, high-performance aircraft". Which doesn't jive with reality. This was later removed in the 1980 and later editions. Jane's provides open source intelligence that is of limited accuracy. If it contrasts with later sources that have access to closed sources, the later ones are more reliable. And what does Clarence Johnson say about the F-14?

You credentials are not applicable to history and policy analysis; moreover, this is an encyclopedia, not a support group. If you are to ask me to "visit a library" (what, do you think I own the 1970-2000 Janes All the World's Aircraft?), I suggest you take some courses in research and history. --Mmx1 23:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I mean what do YOU want to make peace??? --matador300 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your comments here, at my user page, and to LWF speak for themselves in this case. Perhaps you ought to consider what you've said to others, then ask yourself..."Why did mediation fail?"

You were asked to comply with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:OWN throughout the mediation. You were asked to stop editing aircraft related articles and to play nice, however, you didn't. After I specifically asked you not to edit anything related to aircraft, you decided to edit five articles related to disputed content and six others that had to do with the Vietnamese Air Force and/or the Vietnam War. You went to AfD and started personal attacks with several other users, and you mentioned your dispute with Mmx there when he had nothing to do with the AfD in question. I have presented multiple opportunities for you to provide sources that will be accepted by Wikipedia editors other than an unconfirmed Grumman VP statement on Modern Marvels and a FAS article that doesn't say anything about a variable-sweep wing beyond its existence to support a mixed mission profile, yet you've chosen to concentrate on spreading the dispute to other articles rather than fix the ones that are already broken. I don't know what you expect me to have done for your side of the dispute, but for you to accuse me of siding with Mmx and calling you a "bad boy" after what I've attempted to do for you and Mmx and the F-14 article is downright bad taste on your part after some of the outbursts you've caused and some of the tactics you've used. You essentially stalled the mediation and any chance of a truly neutral outcome by some of the shenanigans you've engaged in within the last week, and I see no reason to re-open the case.

I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. CQJ 01:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyways and excuuuuuuuuuse me --matador300 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

PSC OJ ref is busted

Hi! At wikipedia:Pacific Science Center I see you added a ref to "Memories of a 1976 summer "oj" demonstrator" but the link doesn't work. Can you fix it? I've had no luck finding it, bu it sounds interesting. rewinn 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No formal reference, just my own memories. Can't find the photos though. I didn't put in the bit about fishing people out of the ponds when they were too stoned to stay in the laser show.--matador300 21:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh. If those ponds could talk, what tales they could tell .... but seriously folks .... I love the van photo! But there was some text about the Chevette that seemed incomplete ... it was joined to the metric system sentence. Any thoughts? rewinn 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"register" declaration in C

"register" dates back to the old Dennis Ritchie C compiler for the PDP-11, which didn't do as sophisticated a job of register allocation; it had to be told what variables to put into registers. Fancier (and bigger) C/C++ compilers now do their own allocation of registers for values (either variables or temporary values), and ignore the "register" keyword. Guy Harris 00:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Strategy the Whole Kaboodle

There ya go. :) QuizQuick 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

To list a User talk namespace page for deletion after adding {{subst:md1}} at the top, you have to do the following:

I.	Create its MfD subpage. Add this text: {{subst:md2|pg=User talk:Wiarthurhu/Archive 1|text=Reason}} ~~~~
II.	Add a line to today's MfD. Add this text: {{subst:md3|pg=User talk:Wiarthurhu/Archive 1}}. Include "User talk:Wiarthurhu/Archive 1" in the edit summary.

Beyond the simple Wikipedia rules, some editors have recognized patterns of techniques and tactics used by editors to maintain dominance over their content domains. While these have not been sanctioned, nor discouraged by Wikipedia officials, these are practices that some have used to add content, and protect it from changes by others, and may or not constitute good manners on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia bears some resemblence to other games of strategy and dominance, such as military strategy, Chess and poker. Some users bring in such emotion and action, it might be compared to a game of paintball played with articles and citations, and Wikipedia rules where sentences, paragraphs, or entire articles composed by hundreds of editors placed on the "board" can be removed by a single person citing violations of certain rules, or prevented by constructing webs of supporting articles. Articles can be guarded by diligent users who may or may not be qualified to make decisions of information quality, and may be quick to revert articles contrary to their own goals. Admininstrators can be brought in who may or not be relied upon to make justice prevail.

Wikipedia documentation gives general guidelines on what is encouraged, permitted, discouraged, or punishable by various sanctions.

Protect your sandcastle against bullies

• Cite, cite, cite. Unverifiable information is as good as erased.
• Objective. If you have to put in an opinion, cite at least one person other than yourself who shares that opinion, that makes existence of that opinion a fact.
• Build supporting articles.
• Link to other articles and link back.
• If you can't remove a factual error, put corrections elsewhere and flag as inconsistent.
• If an author will not permit content to be entered, flag that a POV is being enforced.
• NPOV, NPOV, NPOV keep content as balanced and bland, unprovocative as possible
• Avoid controversy

How to get into trouble with Wikipedia

• Wikipedia:Harassment

• Edit wars

• Article ownership

• Non Neutral Point of View

• Original research

• Unverifiable information

Strategies to get on top

This is a list of some practices that, though many have been written in the perspective of one who has been defeated by these strategies, have been have been effective in either promoting ones own contributions, or eliminating the contributions of others, if the objective is dominance of a WP space.

It is expected that this list can be expanded, but contributers should be very careful of POV, avoiding personal attacks, verifiablity with citations with possible, and "jargon" defined is also appropriate Ref anon means that a specific instance cannot be cited without negatively identifying an individual.

• Revert good faith edits with cited content with comment: "removing vandalism". (anon)

• You can tag a new article for speedy deletion with reason "no value" even though it satisfies no such criterion for deletion, even if there are no copyright or privacy violations, obscenity or similar issues that would cause harm to others. (anon)

• If you encounter a person who claims to have advanced education, a room full of reference books and magazines, read hundreds of articles over dozens of years, dismiss his assertions as as "utter nonsense", "without value", "misinformed crap" and "made up stuff". If asked, say that this person offered no relevant credentials.

• You can effectively police one or more articles, making it impossible for others to change information which you are absolutely confident is correct. If you do this long enough, your assertions will be mirrored across dozens of other online encyclopedias. You will have achieved success when your assertion appears as the opinions of other users who have read your revised Wikipedia article as a reference. (anon)

• You can dismiss any reference presented to contradict your assertion as either biased or unreliable. You can dismiss industry trade journals subscribed to by libraries as biased in favor of companies that advertise in them. Any TV program, even National Geographic cannot be relied on as a source. Corporate vice presidents, engineering managers and former test pilots are also sources tarnished by bias towards the projects they worked on. Books by aviation publishers are unreliable sources.

• On Wikipedia, credentials do not matter. You need present no credentials in term of age, education, job or professional experience, number of books and journals read or media watched or research papers published or completed. As long as you are confident in the quality of your sources, you can declaring with absolute certainty your correctness in any dispute, especially against an individual who believes has more credentials than you.

• Although WP encourages automatic removal of any passage that is uncited, you can remove any edit, cited or otherwise as long as you can show the source is biased, or unreliable.

• If you do not have a direct supporting quote in your source, you can construct one on the basis of ommission of information. You can construct "Not C" on the basis of a list that omits "C". "Open source article A on aircraft B lists capability D, but does not list capability C" and "I have never seen a print article or book" together is a complete proof that "Aircraft B was never designed for capability C".

• If you find an article that contains a contribution by an opposing editor, you can remove the entire article nominating an article for deletion. If you can make a case that much of it is uncited, or subjective opinion, most editors who vote on articles to delete will accept your rationale, and remove not only the edits of one, but every other editor who worked on that article. Once deleted, content cannot be viewed again.

Also see

• Naval strategy
• List of military tactics
• Poker strategy
• Abstract strategy game

~The End

Sigh...

OK, I think it's time to stop and think for awhile. I have been continually unimpressed with your incivil behavior, refusal to obey Wikipedia policies, and taking your sources completely out of context. I am tired of you painting me and others as "bad guys", and this needs to stop NOW. I would like for you to take a breather, read over Wikipedia policies thoroughly, and understand why people take offense to some of your edits. I don't want to be rude or offensive, but I'm telling it as it is. --ApolloBoy 00:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, just agree to condemn and never commit / apologize for the offences listed above (thinks that !@#$% me off about WP), sign your name, and I'll call you a good guy. Otherwise I think you're the one causing problems as you're not only wrong on the Cavalier (the european Cavalier also replaced the Chevette, don't you know), but I've found sources to confirm the Spirit, which looks exactly what an Aries replacement ought to look like, is a replacement for the Aries. You, on the other hand, aren't even old enough to have known about either car when they were out, and have evidently relied on .... original research to construct your incorrect conclusion, similar to another editor that I am not allowed to mention, not to mention prone to removing correct and verifiable information to support your non-neutral POV. Please know what you are talking about before you intimidate and make life miserable for other editors such as Bulldozer. I've about had it with jerks on WP, you evidently are allied with similar people on WP as well. I'm wondering where all the other good guys are. Go get yourself a white hat and learn what white hats are about. --matador300 00:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

I have already apologized for me calling some of your edits vandalism, but my age should not even be a factor in this. I know a lot about cars, and I don't care if I'm too young to have been around those cars when they came out. Age and knowledge are NOT related. And I have never put in my POV into articles, so do not accuse me of putting in my POV when I have never been called out on it. For the last time, we are NOT being jerks. We want to help you, but your attitude is not helping. --ApolloBoy 00:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the Chevette/Cavalier issue, I found this sentence from your source that actually says the opposite of what you stated.

"After introducing the front-drive Citation as replacement for the Nova during the 1980 model year, it was no surprise that Chevrolet would introduce a front-drive machine in the empty spot in its lineup left when the Vega and Monza disappeared, just above the decrepit Chevette." --ApolloBoy 00:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just above means effectively the same space. Entry level roomy compact. Monza and Chevette both replace the Vega. The follow on to the Vega niche is the Cavalier. They are roughly the same size and passenger capacity, tight seating for 4/5 adults. The Monza did not have a sedan version, the sedan version of the Monza was occupied by the Chevette. And European Cavalier replaced their Chevette as well. So why do you have such a problem, and can you cite a refernce to what sedan the Cavalier did replace since there is no Monza sedan? Just knock it off and get used to the truth, and somebody who knows more about cars for longer than you, as you have evidently inflicted yourself on other hapless editors with comments like "reverted vandalism", I doubt I was your first victim. --matador300 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No it does not. Just because the Toyota Camry is above the Toyota Corolla does not mean they occupy the same space. The Camry is Toyota's mid-size car, while the Corolla is Toyota's compact. Same goes for the Cavalier and Chevette, except the Cavalier was a compact and the Chevette a subcompact.

Also keep in mind that the European Chevette and Cavalier were not the same as their American counterparts. The Vauxhall Chevette was introudced in 1975, while the Cavalier Mk I, which was completely unrelated to the Chevette (the Cavalier Mk I was related to the Opel Ascona B), appeared the next year. The Cavalier Mk II (which was related to the Chevy Cavalier) was also larger than the American Cavalier (mid-size to compact), as was the Cavalier Mk I to the Chevette (mid-size to subcompact).

As for the vandalism comment, when I revert vandalism, it is actual vandalism, not related to a dispute. I have no idea why you still bring up the issue of me calling some of your edits vandalism when I already apologized for it. Just drop the issue already. --ApolloBoy 01:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:1988ToyotaVan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1988ToyotaVan.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Please stop placing the {{Neutrality}} tag on articles inappropriately. The definition of WP:NPOV is very specific as regards policy on Wikipedia. Someone who disagrees with you does not necessarily lack a NPOV, they merely dispute your version of events. The {{Disputed}} template is more appropriate.

You may also wish to consider archiving your talk page, as it currently stands at 106kB in size. -- DeLarge 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You write way too POV

I have noticed some of your edits, and I must say that they are way too POV. please try to tone down your edits. Karrmann 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I got your message. I am not siding with the bullies. My revision may sound like it is glorifying the Taurus a little bit (I admit it, I adore the Taurus, after owning 3, i'm in love) but still, your version isn't the most apprioate for an enclyopedia either (Ex: Many americans would be supriesd to hear that this low key family sedan is ford's 4th best selling model; While a low key fleet special, it still remains recommended by Consumer Reports etc). but I'll try to tone down my entry. Karrmann 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WP

Okay stating that you are better than other users comes of as very bad-I think you know that. Now in regards to your edits- here's how WP should work- You post correct info, if someone contests it you provide them w/ the sources and if neccesary conslut other editors. I came to this project when it was still quite young and didn't find any hostility. If you post correct info then nobody will remove it and if so then you need to have a discussion with them. There should not be any problem at least not on this scale. I think its a good idea to just stop the arguing for now on both sides and, as I said, as long as you do what's right this argument shouldn't flare up again. Signature^brendel 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

on Articles for deletion: List of successful autombiles

Go back through and fix Karrmann's beginning statement by taking out your comments in parenthesis. You don't need to attack every sentence he says. Just simply place a complete comment right under his in paragraph form, using : to indent. The way you have commented back to him is terrible looking and almost impossible to read. ren0^talk 21:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

While you are at it go back and fix all the comments in parenthesis you placed. ren0^talk 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the comments you inserted which were directed at me...

1. (there are sources all over the place my friend) ~ there's one, for the Volkswagen Phaeton. But because, once again, you failed to use the <ref> tag properly (you haven't generated references in a footnotes section at the bottom), you can't link to it without manually copying the URL. There are no functional references on List of automobiles that were commercial failures. Please read WP:FOOT and familiarise yourself with its functions.
2. (lots of ...[numbers].. too) ~ There are some numbers, but there's plenty which don't have any (which is exactly what I said). For a list whose sole criteria for inclusion should be sales figures, having any missing numbers is a bad thing.
3. (if it's out there, it belongs in WP, sorry you're quite wrong on this) ~ Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "It's out there" is not sufficient for inclusion.
4. (also a troublesome interaction history with this fellow as well) ~ that's a comment on the user, not the AfD.

--DeLarge 22:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

stop the crap talk

{(Personal attack removed) Karrmann 21:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Karrmann 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, any doubts I had about bullying behavior on the part of this editor have certainly been erased. --matador300 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a bully Wairthu, I just am really mad at the moment at your very immature behavior. Karrmann 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read wp:civility and get back to me compliant with those rules. So far you have managed to conform to most of MY guidelines of distressing behavior on WP, and you appear to condone and support all of those tactics. --matador300 22:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wairthu, I wouldn't have done half that stuff if I wasn't mad. If I would have had a cool head, trust me, it would have been very diffrent.

When I get a full apology and a retraction of the AFD, I'll consider removing a record of your conversations from my user page. --matador300 22:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL

In reference to the automobiles AfD... please refresh yourself on the above Wikipedia policies before proceeding. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes, though I don't want to take sides... definitely both parties should try to stay cool. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to tell you specifically, though, the list at the top of the AfD is disruptive, and not necessary (nor customary) on AfDs. So, I reverted the AfD back to its state before that edit, also removing the excessive RPA tags. It should be fine as it stands now. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Successful cars Afd

Hi! I'd like to help you with this article to avoid Afd. Not being a car buff, I can help in reducing the POV and crafting a little more encyclopedic format. To get away from WP:OR we're going to need some more sources showcase the "success" and "cult following" of these models. Being in the car world, you're in much better position to find these sources. I'll try and tag the items that are most needing of sources and list them on the article talk page. Agne 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Put in a vote while you're at it. I need all the help I can get against this crowd. I tame one guy and 12 others show up in his place. --matador300 23:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn't tame me, I just decieded that I wouldn't let you get the satisfaction of ruining my day. Karrmann 23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean you're going back to violating NPA, COOL, and CIVIL again? I'll be here. Have a nice day. You still need to fix that Taurus thing or I'll go back to the other version. Care to share your age, professional writing experience or education? --matador300 00:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about Karrmann's "writing experience"? He's quite knowledgable for his age.--ApolloBoy 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And what is his age? I'm nearly 50. And what do you think of his Taurus entry? And his WP conduct? I hope you don't condone that sort of thing. --matador300 02:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

When I am not raging mad, I follow the wikipedia guidelines very closly, and I even have a few friends. What you saw today is me when I am raging mad. If you want to see the colm Karrmann who follows the rules and has friends, then don't attack me. Karrmann 02:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

AMC Matador

Congratulations (hostile)- you just violated: WP:NOR, WP:Vanity, WP:NPA (hostile)and now WP:3RR. This is completely unacceptable behavior.(hostile) I'm taking this to mediation. (hostile) SteveBaker 01:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

chill out, man. It's just an encyclopedia for pete's sake. --matador300 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this encyclopedia is not without rules. --ApolloBoy 03:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a system where anyone can write anything and stick it anywhere. If other people are unable to moderate those changes and follow the basic guidelines then we this won't be an encyclopedia for long. Repeatedly trying to put a picture of the pinewood derby racer you built is not contributing to the writing of an encyclopedia - it's vanity, and it's 'original research' and both are disallowed for very good reasons. Please take your 3RR rebuke in the way it's intended. Cool off - think about why so many otherwise calm, pleasant people are so angry with you personally. If it were just one or two people - you could write it off as them being idiots - but now the number of offended people is in the dozens and growing by the day. At this point, surely you cannot imagine that they are all in the wrong. Rationally there comes a point when you have to realise that this is a problem of your own making. If you don't like the way Wikipedia works - then just leave - find another creative outlet - the Internet is full of other possibilities. SteveBaker 13:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Your violation of WP:3RR is to be reported on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, and you have been notified in advance as per procedure. --DeLarge 02:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You too? Such a wonderful, supportive community, glad to see the effort put into making this a positive experience for everyone. --matador300 02:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[5] made on August 3 2006 (UTC) to AMC Matador

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 07:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating, captain. The Klingons have responded with something called a user-block. Darn them! --matador300 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's it!

THAT'S IT! I'm taking you to meditation! Karrmann 22:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You go do that. I'm sure the mediator will be impressed by your demeanor "atrocity" "want wiarthurhu gone" "I'm going to get you blocked" "just try me" and posting copyrighted pictures with no original source information, yadayada and edit record. --matador300 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Mope, you don't understand. Meditation is when we talk like two civilized people to resolve our dispute. Karrmann 22:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already taken the issues surrounding the AMC Matador article to mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-03 AMC Matador - at time of writing, one mediator has said that he won't mediate with Wiarthurhu anymore. Additionally, there is still debate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wiarthurhu about what is to be done about this unacceptable situation. SteveBaker 22:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gang Activity on Wikipedia

What do you call it in the real world when 7 or 8 people work together to hinder one person? The other guy in the F-14 mediation admitted he was completely wrong on most points. Isn't that not jus t one bully, isn't that called a gang? Not that I would accuse any of the people I've interacted with here of doing that, oh no, that's not allowed. Now I'm getting beaten up and blocked by so many people and 14 and 16 yr old kids, half of whom openly swear and launch personal attacks in violation of WP policy, I can't keep count. Keep it up guys, I'll have a real story to talk about when I write this up and offer it to real newspapers and magazines. It just gets more interesting each day. I assume it can and will get much worse than this. Everything you do is recorded right here for the whole world to see, remember that. --matador300 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you call it in the real world when 7 or 8 people work together to hinder one person? - a Posse - a group of people who come together to enforce the laws of the community? An Intervention - a group of people who try to help someone who is incapable of seeing the truth? This is a defense of a wrong that needs to be righted. Martydom won't work and I'm pretty sure you have more to fear from a media exposee than the people who are trying to get you to behave. Many, many people have threatened to go to the media over their treatment here - and so far, no terrible exposee has brought Wiki to it's knees. For the record - I'm not a teenager - I'm 51 years old and I earn a six digit salary managing a team of software engineers. I have not (yet) sworn at you (although I'm sorely provoked) - nor am I likely to do so - and I'm happy to go on the record to say that I diapprove that some people have had to resort to that. I have attempted to discuss this rationally - to follow community guidelines and to use the mechanisms provided here to get some redress for your exceedingly poor behavior.

You clearly don't like the WP rules - I can see that you don't think WP is being run correctly - but you stand ZERO chance of changing that because a vast majority of people are quite happy with the rules. You can't possibly be having fun - you certainly aren't getting paid - you are making a lot of other people miserable - and it's definitely not working out well for your personal reputation. We are at a point now where just about everyone who works on the same set of pages that you do is unhappy with you - there are no outraged voices coming out in your favor - not one. It's almost impossible for that situation to improve. Trust me - you'll feel much happier if you just write off Wikipedia as something that doesn't work for you - and go find some other outlet for your creative talents. We know you are capable of doing good work - but your failure to tolerate other people's edits of your work is 180 degrees away from the way Wikipedia is designed to work. PLEASE think about this - it's only a matter of time until you get a substantial ban from an admin person - and it's better to leave with some dignity and style than to be run out of town by an outraged crowd waving pitchforks...which is the other thing you get when 7 or 8 people work together to hinder one person. SteveBaker 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this can be summed up quite easily=> WP: Love it or leave it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. If you want to make good edits no one will hinder you, so... Signature^brendel 05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, another fellow with a negative attitude. --matador300 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it could also be read in a humerous tone and the message still wouldn't be lost. Signature^brendel 17:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your recent conflicts

Hi, there! It seems that you're getting into quite a bit of conflict lately by adding your images of car models to several pages, and I'm sure you're aware that some people are up in arms about it. As a neutral party looking in on the matter from the outside, I would recommend that you join discussion on the talk pages of the articles in question before adding your pictures, as they seem to be the source of a lot of controversy. And by that I mean refraining from adding the pictures at least until things are cleared up a bit. Does that sound reasonable? :) You must remember to stay cool when you get stressed, and while people may have not been civil to you due to your edits, it would be best to remain civil back and instead try to prevent conflict by not responding to comments you may find rude. Wikipedia is based off of consensus, and when you add content that others find questionable, it is generally best to discuss such additions thoroughly before participating in an edit war. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 06:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it's a consensus that everybody on WP has to have a negative attitude? --matador300 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people may have negative attitudes, but it's encouraged to assume good faith of other editors despite conflicts. We must recognize that everyone is trying to improve the encyclopedia in some way, just at times people have different ways of doing so that each believe is right. It is when this happens that we have a content dispute. Content disputes usually lead nowhere unless things are talked out, so that is why I am suggesting that you try to engage in conversation and see other's opinions before adding your possibly controversial content. It is important to look at matters from their perspective and see what their reasoning is for not including your content. Cowman109^Talk 16:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to see my list of people who have shown a negative attitude? I don't even think WP allow this, though they should. --matador300 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would help much :). I think the key is to just forget the instances of people being incivil to you and to instead help maintain a positive editing environment, focusing on the content instead of the contributer. If they are uncivil to you in the future, simply don't respond to the offensive comments but instead continue the discussion of the content. Maintaining a grudge against these people won't do you, or the encyclopedia any good. Do you agree? Cowman109^Talk 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

SA-6 missile video

Look if it's your work - it's probably not the worst thing I've ever seen - but there are some serious problems with it (from memory)

• In the strange infinitely flat landscape I didn't see any radar vehicles.
• The missile has a minimum range of 6 km in the early version, and while this is reduced to 4km in later versions - it looked like the engagement was taking place at max 2 km away from the launcher.
• The launcher didn't track (at all) - the real launcher doesn't have to be exactly lined up on the target.
• The launcher is right out there in the open - no attempt is made to hide it. This is not exactly realistic.
• I couldn't see any cables running from the vehicle to (invisible?) radar vehicles.
• Assuming it was inside the minimum range - the near miss in the second video would have probably detonated the missile (the doppler fuze would have gotten a strong negative doppler and detonated the warhead) while it probably wasn't close enough to destroy the plane it could have quite possibly damaged it.
• I didn't see anything fall away from the missile in flight (but then it didn't go on to long) the missile should drop it's booster nozzle after about 4.1 seconds of flight.

It's just not realistic - why should we link to it and have people think that it is? Megapixie 00:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I like operation flashpoint as much as the next man - but we don't like to operation flashpoint for videos for M16, M203, etc. Why should we do so in this case. Megapixie 00:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the response. I just found it an a SA-6 search. Not having seen one, I thought it was pretty impressive. I was not aware that cables have to be run between vehicles. If this is true, you should add it to the article. If you could work in these details into the article, or around the link, then I think you should put it back in. How do you know so much about it, were you in the Egyptian Army or something?

--matador300 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:AMC Matador. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SteveBaker 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yadayada. Apolloboy is unneccesarily removing stuff again. --matador300 02:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --ApolloBoy 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeesh, I'm just saying you're making unneccesary removals, and THAT's an attack after what that other fellow got away with? --matador300 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You still attacked me though, and I believe I have already explained the removals to you. Stop accusing me of being a vandal. --ApolloBoy 02:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't I say I disagree with removing material without being accused of calling somebody a vandal? Wasn't that a point I taught you about when we first crossed paths?? Anyways, I propose that if a link already exists for other cars, or on the TV show in question, it should be no different than the Matador unless it gets ridiculous, like listing every movie that has a human in it. --matador300 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the tone of the message didn't help matters. --ApolloBoy 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand the rationale of removing things when I find it really hard to understand how taking something out of interest and use to somebody out there is supposed to outweigh the negative (server space???) of keeping it there?? What is driving all this deletion I see you doing? The WP rules I see say that when in doubt, if it is of any use to anybody, you edit, don't delete. --matador300 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm only removing irrelevant information. It's rather unnecessary to go on about the Dodge Intrepid's competition or success in detail in an article about the Eagle Premier or Dodge Monaco. --ApolloBoy 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

An editor edits to improve material. If you go off on how George Bush is going to ruin the world, that detracts from the article. If you note that Dodge Charger is in effect an heir to the Monaco's old job, and the Premier Monaco was a stop on that path, that's not irrelevant at all. --matador300 14:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but you know you can trace the linage simply by clicking on the "Successor" field in the infobox, right? Like I said, there's no need to go into detail about how the Intrepid succeded and its competitors in the Monaco or Premier articles. It'd just be off-topic... --ApolloBoy 18:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Consumer Reports reviews

I know you don't particularly like me, and frankly at this point I seriously doubt whether you will read very much of what I have to say about anything. But I really feel we need to talk about the Consumer Reports reviews you have been beginning to include in certain automobile articles. While adding them is in no way "wrong" insofar as breaking any Wikipedia rules and such (they are referenced, someone actually did say such and such thing about such and such car), I think including this sort of think sets a very, very dangerous example. As much as CR tries to paint their reviews as objective, they're not. They never have been, never will be. No review is, no matter how hard the reviewer trumpets "we don't accept advertising" and the like. It's a fact that some schmuck working for Consumer's Union might have said something along the lines of "Toyota Camry is the greatest car there is, was and ever will be", but it doesn't make it true. Wikipedia, in my opinion, is not on a mission to tell people which car is better than which according to Consumer Reports magazine. You're old enough to have seen Dragnet: I think our goal is "Just the facts, ma'am". I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. --93JC 16:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Using Consumer Reports as a reference is not completely inapproitae though. there are times when you can use CR as a reference, like in the Ford Taurus article, which I used a Consumer Reports buying guide to reference that quality had fell on the third generation Taurus. --Karrmann 16:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See, even that is gnarly, disingenuous stuff. According to Consumer Reports quality of the third generation Taurus was worse than the previous two. That's their opinion. Just because they said it doesn't make it fact. If we start using those kinds of excerpts we start painting a subjective picture of what this car was like. In my opinion that's something we expressedly don't want to do. --93JC 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Historically, CU is one of my favorites as reviews go. It's not the only one, for example I used Car and Driver for the fusion. Some calls are odd, for example hating the Gremlin at first, and then giving it first place later, rating the Caravan over the too-small 1st Odyssey. But most school and public libraries carry it, it's made the news for condemning some cars, and they have among the best surveys for reliability. On reading them now, I actually have more of appreciation for when they considered the Taurus to be the equal of Camry and Accord, and how superior the premier-based Intrepid was when it was judged the equal or better than any of those three, but the previous LeBaron fell short of all three.

So far there are too few reviews for a pleathora of reviews to be a problem. I'd recommend adding a review section with short comments from a range of reviews. MT and CD are available and searchable on line, as are reviews from Edmunds /Inside line, CU are available by subscription, and of course, public libraries, as are magazines like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics which used to have highly regarded reviews of cars like the Torino and Matador. CU is probably the most objective of any magazine publishing reviews, at least they don't do photo spreads of an admiral fighting it out with a Boy Scout like C/D or drive a car off a cliff or race against a dog or drive behind a running 747 like Top Gear. Currently many articles refer to poor reviews or remarsk about poor engineering on cars like Shadow and Cavalier without referring to any specific review, and that's a shame.

--matador300 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is: why include reviews at all? Why is it we would even have remarks in the Cavalier and

Shadow articles about shoddy engineering, poor build quality or what have you? I think it's our responsibility to disregard these sorts of statements: I don't think it's up to us to make that kind of call. --93JC 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If movies and TV shows have reviews that say star wars was great, or rotten tomatoes think Doogal was the 2nd worst movie ever made, that should certainly carry over to cars, donchathink?? Certainly automobile magazines have reviews, and reference books often refer to very good or very bad reviews and MT Car ofthe Year, CD top 10, do they not? --matador300 17:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in an encyclopedia. Here is a litmus test: "Would you expect to see this in the Encyclopedia Britannica?" If the answer is "No" then you know what to do. SteveBaker 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the world book, you know. Brittanica doesn't have movie reviews either, WP does. Do we strip every movie mention a book review or movie review from WP? Brittanica is limited by space and bandwidth of contributors, WP is not. Brittanica will never has the ridiculous listing of every little model, generation platform and option of the Toyota Corolla, WP does, or one day might. This attitude is what really burns me up. Some of the best stuff on WP is what they spend the most time deleting, though I will not name names. --matador300 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Top Gear episodes This is fabulous stuff, and I can quickly guess what you guys would do to it. --matador300 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you are. You don't like Wikipedias goals and objectives. Fair enough - I can understand that. So go away and annoy some other online information site and let us get on with fulfilling WP's aims. For stuff that I want to put online that doesn't agree with Wikipedias goals, I have simply set up my own Wiki. It's all mine - nobody else can tell me what to put on it - so it has all sorts of weird stuff. But I don't try to put that content here because it's not "encyclopeadic". SteveBaker 12:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems your fulfilling WP's aims is largely foiling other people trying to filfill WP's aims. I'll take adding material like Top Gear over deleting Adam-12 references anyday. This is my WP as much as your WP, and as soon as I attract 50 like minded followers, YOUR DAYS DARE NUMBERED. --matador300 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I Have A Dream Speech

• a world where people don't use AfD's to attack other authors like kicking down sandcastles on a busy beach.
• a world where editors are civil to each other and actually follow rules regarding civilitity and no attacks on other authors , and not just attack other authors by quoting WP policy.
• a world where you can say that that Matador was a predecessor to the Premier which was an ancestor of the charger /300
• a world where you can say that Jeremy Clarkson called the Nissan Sunny the worst car ever made
• a world where you can say the Motor Trend summed up that the Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town car was said by the WSJ should be or are about to be retired like their owners
• a world where you can say that Consumer Reports judged the Taurus, Camry and Accord superior to the Chrysler LeBaron and not get an angry, indignant letter from another editor.
• a world where the AMC Matador, and not just the Plymouth Belvedere and Satellite mentions that it was not only on Adam-12, but also Michael Jackson's Black and White video and Pink Floyd's The Wall video, and thus was in more media than the Beledere, Satellite, and Monaco combined.
• a world where you can put a picture of a Johnny Lightning A100 dragster truck on the Dodge A100 page or AMC The Machine as the only high quality color pictures without an edit war.

I imagined a world where you could say that the F-14 was maneuverable and was an air superiority fighter, and that the Spirit/Acclaim were designed to suceed the K cars. I was tarred and feathered for doing go, but I did it. But that's ok.

Yes, I have grand dreams. And I'm not going to let people like you stand in the way. (though you might successfully do that despite my best efforts.)

And when we get there, I'll write "Free At Last, Free At Last, Thank God, We're Free at Last!"

Ruby Bridges Here's a another person that wasn't afraid to take on the entire town to get justice. --matador300 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It only takes one person to be right. I just made that up.

--matador300 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a dream when you just follow WP rules, and we can put a cap on this nonsense.

Remember we have a cease fire, or I shall be forced to inflict even more humiliating defeats upon you. --matador300 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought about it, but I didn't want to do it, cause I read what you wais at the project page, and I felt like you were just using me to "weaken the opposition". Humiliating defeats? Well, I admit, you may have won a couple of battles, but you are losing the war. Karrmann 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no war, there is no ceasefire, there are no battles, no winners and no defeated here. There's Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, it is not a battleground, so all you kids big and small pack your toy soldiers and go play somewhere else.

Wikipedia is also not the place you have been dreaming of Wiarthurhu - you wanted something else, and Wikipedia is not that and won't bend to your needs, because it has different goals. If you still want the same thing, don't let yourself get even more frustrated or irritated and find yourself a place which would suit your needs better. And I am being totally serious here and don't mean to sound condescending. I know getting frustrated and seeing "everybody against you" is not the best mood to spend your days in. But that's probably what you are going to get from Wikipedia because of this inherent difference in goals. Consider that! Bravada, talk - 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

F-14 Citations

Please cease and desist from removing citation tags without proper citations that support the material in question. Supporting a part of the section is not sufficient to support the entire paragraph. I should remind you that citing wikipedia itself is not permitted, for obvious reasons. --Mmx1 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What claim do you dispute, and what is your real purpose? Are you not able to verify the claim yourself, or do you doubt the claim yourself? No other article on WP has been peppered with as many tags as you have put. Please do not use these tags simply to hinder another author which seems to be the real purpose for this use. --matador300 17:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I should have figured out where the silliness came from. What's the point of asking for citations for obvious facts? Are you in doubt that the Blue Angels transitioned to Skyhawks? Are you in doubt that the USMC did not adopt the A-7, F-14, or delayed adopting the M-1? (they used the M60A3 in Desert Storm). I thought you knew this stuff better than I. I know you can certainly figure this stuff out even if somehow you did not know these things. If not, why raise the question? It's just creating work for me to throw this obvious stuff out. If it bugs you, you can certainly track down this information with a quick web search. There is no point in working against each other. Certainly you've been guilty of writing edits without citations, I'm among the editors putting in the most in-line references when most aviation articles don't have any. In my view, these calls for citations are excessive and detract significantly from the quality of the article, so I'll ask you to do the right thing and either fix them yourself, or remove them.

I do with to commend you and thank you for your gracious cooperation since the mediation. Was anyone else dissapointed by the success of the deletion of scientific failures, or was I the only casualty?? --matador300 15:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If the claims are unverifiable directly by sources, and not by some original research fabricated on top of sourced claims, then they do not belong in Wikipedia. Simple as that. You made the assertions, the burden of proof lies on you.--Mmx1 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "this capability" referrs to the capability stated in the previous sentence, regarding detection, tracking, and engagement of X targets at such and such a range. If you wish to state the Phoenix was never used, fine, but to claim that capability is gone is bullshit. --Mmx1 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It only takes one person to be right

Hello, I came accross this redirect It only takes one person to be right to Ruby Bridges and after checking the article and the web I couldn't find any reference or citation linking both subjects. Since it looks a little weird to me that a citation would redirect to a person, I was wondering what was the rational behind it. Thanks.--Sylvain Mielot 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures

Please keep your contibutions civil. Attacking the votes of other users is not helpfull and achieves nothing. If you have a problem with another editor, take it up with them on their talk page, and AfD discussion is no place to argue. Viridae^Talk 03:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally attacking other members or making their votes seem irrelivant are considered to be extreme vandalism and are breaking the rules, and could result in a block. Please stop. Karrmann 03:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wiarthurhu : your behaviour on this AfD is disruptive and unacceptable - also almost certainly counterproductive as aggressive challenging of delete advocates tends to result in a hardening of attitudes, rather than a change of heart. Please remain calm and argue solely on the merits of the article itself; you are free to make your case but haivng done so you must also respect the right of other editors to form their own judgment. I have removed some of the more counterproductive and incivil comments from the AfD. You may include your views as a "keep" adovcate, but adding header sections is a job for admins and univolved parties. If you continue to disrupt the AfD by making aggressive statements you may be blocked from editing. Just zis Guy you know? 11:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bully

Your edits to the article Bully were highly inappropriate. Please read WP:POINT and stop disrupting Wikipedia. If you continue in this vein you will be blocked from editing. Thanks, Gwernol 03:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is so inappropriate. Using an article to promote your own viewpoint is a really serious disruption of Wikipedia - far beyond anything you've done before. This has to stop - it really does. I'm also very upset that my attempt at compromise on the use of photos of toys in car articles resulted in a grossly inappropriate use of such a photo with my name attached to it as justification! That's really not a good way to get people to see your point of view. I quite clearly wrote that I'd only see this use as appropriate if we couldn't find a photo of the real car by other means. That article already has THREE photos of the actual car on it - how could you possibly say I'd agreed to sticking another photo of a toy onto that article...particularly after I've reverted such photos half a dozen times in the past. As soon as ANYONE reaches out to try to help you, you just slap them in the face again. Well, sooner or later this kind of behavior is going to get you banned - and I'm now planning on being a prime mover behind that action. SteveBaker 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also issuing YOU a citation for uncivil conduct. Calling for a ban is a personal attack. --matador300 15:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a factual statement. Disruptive behaviour can get you banned, and if your behaviour towards Steve has caused him to want to take an active part in making that happen then it's reasonable for him to tell you. He's not the only one telling you that your aggressive style is disruptive and problematic. Just zis Guy you know? 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So I take it you approve of Apolloboy's vandalism and mischief, and choose to attack ME instead? There are no other photos of LAPD Matadors. You may be older and wiser than Apolloboy, but evidently only slightly so.--matador300 15:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wairthu, your behavior is completely crassing the line. I will do whatever I can to get you blocked. Karrmann 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am issuing you a citation for violating WP rules. It is considered a personal attack to call for blocking. --matador300 15:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Issuing a citation? Who designated you a wikicop? What's the fine? When are these characters to appear in wikicourt? --Mmx1 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm giving you a citation too for being rude to a WikiCop. You get three and I'll take you to wikicourt. --matador300 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wairthu, you are not a wikicop. In fact, acting like this will get you Wiki-blocked. Karrmann 15:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

OK, I've read through this page and looked at your recent history. Edit summaries like this [6] are blatantly incivil, accusing good-faith editors of deliberately damaging an article by removing a picture which is not even of the real thing. You need a timeout. You have 24 hours now to calm down and learn to keep cool. Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked - Continuous disprution of Wikipedia

---

You have been blocked for a week from editing this site due incivility and disruption.

I agree with Wiarthurhu that the 24 hour block was too short, so I've lengthened it to a week. Your disregard for Wikipedia policy, your personal attacks and repeated incivility and your repeated disruption at Bully after being warned not to require a lengthier block. You are clearly intent on ignoring all reasonable attempts to work with you to curb your excessive behavior. If you continue with this after your block expires you will be blocked again with increasing length and I will warn you that you are perilously close to exhausting the patience of the community and getting a permanent ban. Gwernol 16:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I shall return --matador300 16:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will have learned a lesson from this, Wiarthurhu. Do us all a favor, and don't make the block indefinite when you return. --ApolloBoy 00:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu, your rebellion and reluctance for following Wikipedia rules is not hurting anybody but yourself. You are coming close to finally exhausting the very last bit of patience in the Wikipedia community, to where somebody is going to come along and block you indefantly, and I can gurantee 100% that is going to happen if you continue behaving the way you are currently. You have to make a drastic change in your behavior very fast if you want to keep editing. Your acting like a Wikicop is way over the line, and that will get you instantly blocked if you continue that, because that is a severe rule violation, like how imating a cop in real life can get you thrown in Jail for a long time. YOu are edging very close to a indefinate block, and the only person you're defeating is yourself. Keep that in mind when the block expires. When you behave the way you do, the only person you're hurting is yourself, because keep in mind, I'm not the one who is hated by the Wikipedia community and will get indef blocked. Karrmann 00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To Reiterate myself, there was another user who used yelling and pouting to get his point across, similar to you, and look where he ended up. You are going to end up in the some position as him if you continue your current form of behavior. Karrmann 00:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I run into a habit of responding on another people's talk pages... Anyway, Karrmann, your conduct in the last weeks makes you as likely a candidate for blocking as Wiarthurhu. Don't take it personally, but the way you handle that (and some other issues I have come accross) is very immature and seriously breaches numerous WP policies, guidelines and good practices. Do not respond - please just think it over. Bravada, talk - 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Karrmann - please chill out - you aren't helping right now, and even if you were, help isn't needed. Punishment has been dealt out - Wiarthurhu has a week to think about things. When he comes back (if he comes back) we'll either see a reformed character whom we should not provoke - or we'll have someone who'll walk right into a much more substantial ban the next time he steps over the line. Either way - it's over. We should use this week of peace and quiet to get on with some seriously good encyclopedia editing and not post comments to a guy who can't answer back...that's unfair. Meanwhile - I'm playing with Automobile - fun, fun, fun! SteveBaker 01:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that. Instead of worring about Wairthu, I'll use this week to do what I did best before everything with him started, which is edit automobile articles to the best of my ability. Karrmann 01:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Karmann said "the only person you are hurting is yourself". However, the block on 131.107.0.105 is affecting me also. Wiarthurhu must be at my company (a large one with several WP editors; reverse DNS if you must find out what it is). Oh well - I shouldn't be editing during work hours anyway. David Brooks 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So, why did I think the above edit would work? I guess either the block was removed, or our proxies are succeeding in rotating IP addresses. David Brooks 21:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Adam-12 Scuffle

- - == Removing ADAM-12??? == - The toy thing I understand you've got backup, but Adam 12???? What's up? There are many web pages that make the connection between Adam 12 and the matador, not to mention the Cox toy whose production was dependent on the product placement, which by the way, increases the notability since somethat happened elsewhere as a consequence. I actually watched Adam-12. Could you adopt a slightly more inclusionist approach, I don't understand your vision of cutting out to improve quality. It's pretty clear we can't put in every mention of a Crown Victoria police car, but for a car as obscure as this one, that makes it notable.--matador300 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Also up on the talk page. - - Please justify the removal of Adam 12 and Pink Floyd and Cox from this section: - - While V-8 power was down for many sedans, AMC used a 401 cubic inch V-8 that outpowered most other police sedans. 0 to 60 times were within 7 seconds, comparable to the 2006 Charger Hemi police car. Top speed was about 125 miles an hour, which took only 43 seconds, much faster than the previous 1970 Plymouth Satellites. These cars would be seen on later episodes of Adam-12, and Pink Floyd The Wall (film). The Adam-12 police car would also be the subject of a now-rare Cox radio controlled gas powered replica.--matador300 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - :See the Matador talk page for my reply. --ApolloBoy - - ::See the samples of plymouth sattelite, Belvedere and Monaco. If mentions of the cars already exist on the other side, or were not tossed out as un-WP, then I will ask your permission to let me put the equivalent links back into Matador. I would also ask you to weigh the cost of leaving information, gathered at the cost of editor time vs the slim to none benefit of "streamlining" an article that is nowhere near too big or off topic. - --matador300 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - :::You don't ask permission for people to put stuff back in, you have to look over the guidelines and ask yourself "should I put this in or not?". Also, thank you for bringing those three articles to my attention, I'll get over to those. --ApolloBoy 23:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - :: Oh no......--matador300 02:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Oh what a beautiful morning Oh what a beautiful day I've got a wonderful feeeeeee liiiiing Everything's going my way. --matador300 18:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What was that?? --matador300 21:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Daily Scripture

2Th 1:6 1:6 {3} Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

(3) God is just, and therefore he will worthily punish the unjust, and will do away the miseries of his people.

Reliable Sources

I am reminding you again, to please observe WP:RS. Forum posts do not constitute reliable sources as anyone can post anything. Also, see Talk:F-14_Tomcat#A_Proposal regarding the deletion of the "controversy" section; without compelling arguments it will be deleted again as consensus was behind deletion. --Mmx1 19:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, please cease and desist from removing "citation needed" tags without providing a source that backs up the disputed claim. --Mmx1 16:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Toy Car images

Wiarthurhu, I know you like to show off all your toys, but Wikipedia is not the approiate place to show them. Toy car images belong only in Toy Car articles, and are NOT sutible to appear in real car articles. Don't trust me, ask the rest of WP automobiles. Karrmann 00:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. And the 1960s communities made up a consensus that that black people couldn't go to the same schools as white kids. Ruby Bridges broke that rule. Maybe you haven't learned that in history yet. I was called nigger and chink when I was a kid your age, but believe me when I never appreciated what this girl went through until I ran into this bunch. No one should be tarred, feathered and run out of town for putting up a picture of a toy car and trying to make it stick.

There are lots of automobile articles with toys, you're going to simply exhaust yourself trying to erase all of them, or just attack me by removing mine. Just do me a big favor and stop doing this, believe me you'll much better by being nice to people than being mean to people. And I will pray for you too. if you don't remove my articles, I won't remove yours, and we'll both be happy. This is Wikipedia, please don't play it like your friends play Halo or Paintball. --matador300 00:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a war, or discriminating people. YOu may be black, but that's not the reason why I am removing a image of a sparse slot car from the NASCAR article. It just doesn't do a good job illustrating the article. What if you wanted to learn about NASCAR, but instead of finding an image of a real NASCAR racer, you fiund a image of a sparse slot car. Would you like that? Karrmann 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

amazing

it does seem awfully disproportionate --Rikurzhen 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wiarthurhu for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Karrmann 11:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attacks

You have been blocked for continuing personal attacks for a period of 3 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Cowman109^Talk 17:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that edits such as this, saying "Oh, I forgot you might not be clever enough to figure that", is simply incivil and a personal attack. Please calm down and remember to focus on content, not on the contributor, despite the anger you have over being accused of having an abusive sockpuppet. The sockpuppet is not active since July 10th, anyway, so there's no real reason for people to worry about it. However, your response was simply innapropriate. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 17:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked for exhausting the community's patience, disruption, personal attacks and incivility per consensus at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. Cowman109^Talk 17:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

BK: All right....we'll call it a draw --matador300 15:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My email is enabled in case anyone who is not celebrating my demise would like to discuss this case. --matador300 15:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked by Cowman109

I have unblocked you per a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Banned_User:Wiarthurhu_asking_for_lifting_of_his_community_ban. Please remember the terms of your unblocking:

1. Accepting that Wiarthurhu has a problem with the authors listed on his RfC, and the authors accepting that they've had problems with him in the past, Wiarthurhu and the editors listed on his RfC agree that they'll mutually avoid each other except through an interlocutor, a mediator, or a neutral third party for a period of no less than three months. Violation of this condition will result in a 72 hour block for any violating party, Wiarthurhu or otherwise.
2. Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in a one week block for Wiarthurhu - and any editor baiting Wiarthurhu will be subject to the same.
3. Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block.
4. Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.

If you have any difficulty, feel free to come to me, or CQJ preferably, as I may be more inactive in the following weeks. Cowman109^Talk 04:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for approval of modification of the unblocking terms at AN/I to remove the entire first paragraph in regards to 72 hour blocks which would have unfairly encumbered you and other editors on the system. If accepted, the terms will read: (I removed them)

And Cowman's already modified the terms. So....

I recommend as a good faith effort that you archive your talk page appropriately (possibly over two archives) and leave the section marked "Unblocked by Cowman109" in place. Please leave a short message at my talk page if you have any questions. Welcome back. CQJ 19:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How do I do the trick where you leave a link to each archive? --matador300 00:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are looking for WP:ARCHIVE Gwernol 00:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)