User talk:Roger491127

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Who am I[edit]

I started editing in wikipedia with a router in 2005 and without a router earlier. My earlier username was Roger4911. My current ip-number is 82.249.177.148. Lightning broke my earlier router so I had to buy a new one around 3 years ago and that changed my ip-number. Earlier I had 82.249.177.39. I have made lots of edits without logging in, that's why I give you my ip-numbers too. In 2006 my ip-number was 87.249.176.224 Roger491127 (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a big number of contributions with the ip-number 82.249.177.148 until I logged in at the end of August 2010, and a few contributions later when I didn't notice that I was logged out after 30 days, but I can not find the contribution list for that ip-number. Roger491127 (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

During the summer and fall 2011 I was active in both Swedish and English wikipedia with the username Roger4911, because of a technical problem with the Swedish wikipedia. But now I have solved the problem and I can use the username Roger491127 again.Roger491127 (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

First flying machine[edit]

Hi Roger. I was wondering what sources you used in your contributions to First flying machine last month. Specifically, this edit and this one which contain unexplained inline numbering. It looks suspiciously like a copy and paste job, which under most circumstances would be plagiarism. However I am prepared to assume good faith if you could explain what the numbers mean. Cheers. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

see the discussion page of the articleRoger491127 (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Roger. I noticed that you had made significant contribs to the Gustave Whitehead article. I was wondering if you would like to make a similar contrib to The Cold Hard Facts wiki on wikia.com (wikia was also founded by Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales). The address is tchf.wikia.com. This wiki is dedicated to correcting historical inaccuracies. An article about the Whitehead/Wright controversy has already been created and is accessible from the main page. However, I need your help in spreading the facts! Please reply to my talk page one way or another. Thanks!

Netmuzik (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

September 2010[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aviation history. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BilCat (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note the difference between me and the person who made big changes to the article. He blatantly removed big parts of carefully researched and properly referenced material and inserted a single reference to somebody who had said that Whitehead could not have flown. I copy the answer I wrote to this person on the Gustave Whitehead discussion page:

"Gibbs-Smith destroys the Whitehead claim. Example User (talk)21:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think you can deny over 25 witness affidavits, an eyewitness article by a journalist, and successful flights of several replicas with some theoretical mumbo-jumbo by a single author?"

If you check up on my work in wikipedia you will surely realize that I am a serious editor, and if somebody should be blocked because of this controversy it is the person who calls himself Example User (talk). Roger491127 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Whitehead section in History of aviation is still a lot shorter than the Wright brothers section, so the argument "too much detail" is not valid. Roger491127 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion regaring your edits to Aviation history on that talk page - that is where you need to respond, not here, and not on my talk page. Yhe issue here is tht you have engaged in a revert war, and you are at risk of being blocked. So if you want to be taken seriously, go th the article's talk page, and defend your edits there. But stop reverting to keep your material, or you will be blocked, at which point you won't be able to defend your edits. - BilCat (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you Bilcat have the habit of deleting my responses I put a copy here too:

Note that the Whitehead section is still a lot shorter than the Wright brothers section. Do you think there is far too much detail in that section too? You also say that the issue is in dispute. Yes, of course it is, because we all learned in school that the Wright brothers invented the airplane in 1903. But after studying the issue for two years I, and many others, think that this "truth" is in dispute. So I suggest we let the reader know enough to make up his own mind on this issue. Simply deleting the side you do not agree with is not a civilized way of handling historic issues.

Millions of people think that the Wright brothers invented the airplane in 1903, but millions of people think that Whitehead flew years before the Wright brothers. This controversy has even involved the politicians in Connecticut and North Carolina. This is not a dispute you simply can delete away. As I said before: let the reader know enough about both sides to make up his own mind on this issue. Simply deleting the side you do not agree with is not a civilized way of handling historic issues. Roger491127 (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, at Wikipedia, we do not go by the so-called "truth" (as described in this essay), we go by mainstream sources. If you cannot show mainstream sources which place Whitehead as the first powered flight, then your goal here is foiled, the goal of rewriting history books through Wikipedia. Note that Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing ones own ideas, and it is not the place to advocate ideas which are in opposition to the mainstream. See WP:NOTADVOCATE. [[User:Example User (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Roger, over on the Whitehead Discussion page, please state what it is you want to have happen with the Whitehead article. This is supposed to be a community effort. Join us over there on the Discussion page, please. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I was active in the discussion page and in editing the article Gustave Whitehead years before you showed up there. (Roger491127)

Wikiquette alert[edit]

You are the subject of a Wikiquette alert. You are free to respond at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Roger491127. Example User (talk)) 03:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Roger491127! The WQA board is not for pasting large sections of talk pages onto: B7) "Do not continue your discussion in detail here. Instead, continue discussing it at its original location. As long as your alert contains a link to the relevant discussions it will be seen." The page you posted this excerpt from is clearly linkable at the top of the thread. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT by deleting everyone else's comments from a discussion. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Noticeboard incident[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Example User (talk)) 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. as you did here SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this warning aimed at me or Example User (talk) who really deserves it and you placed the warning under his text? Study the discussion pages of Aviation history and Gustave Whitehead Roger491127 (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong venue[edit]

The Arbitration Enforcement board is for requesting assistance with issues that have already been ruled on by the Arbitration Committee, not for opening new issues. I've reverted your comments there. In addition, the ArbCom normally doesn't take cases unless all steps of Dispute resolution have been followed. I'd suggest opening an request for comment on the dispute as a next step.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Clarification is not the right page either. Reverted again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

You didn't add the tags for the RFC bot, so I added them for you. In addition, I added a neutral header for the bot to pick up and list on the RFC page, per the instructions there, and removed your original heading.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring notice[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aviation history. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Example User (talk)) 16:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This pair of edits you made to Aviation history demonstrate a continuation of edit warring. You are reverting to your preferred version against the consensus achieved by DonFB, Example User (talk) and Carroll F. Gray. Edit warring may result in your account being blocked, so please stop. Example User (talk)) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You are a part of this conflict, and you have made as many reverting changes as me, so I don't think you are suitable as arbitrator in this issue. I would like to see this issue determined by people who are impartial, people who have scientific education but do not have any preconceptions about aviation history. If they read the arguments from both sides in this issue I am certain that they would support me. Roger491127 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, I am part of the consensus. If you bring enough sympathetic editors to the discussion, you may be able to achieve a consensus that satisfies your viewpoint, but until then your reversions are considered edit warring. [[Example User (talk)]) 18:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines[edit]

At Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, it is suggested that "you should exercise caution" in moving or refactoring comments made by others, and stop if there is an objection. I would say that the recommended way to make sure that your previously posted ideas get read in later discussion threads is to link back to them, such as "At Talk:Aviation history#Whitehead details, I wrote blah blah blah, and it is relevant because..."

At Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, the guideline suggests that moving talk page entries around to include them under another heading is not necessary for clarity and readability, the main goals of refactoring. It says that restructuring talk entries by moving other people's comments "should be done with care to avoid changing meanings", and implies that any lack of good will on the part of other editors indicates that restructuring will not be seen as a positive action.

Personally, I hate seeing any of my talk page entries get moved or copied and pasted elsewhere, especially if the whole entry is copied including the signature. It makes people think that I put it there. If you wish to respond to something specific in someone's talk page entry, copy just that phrase or sentence and quote it in your response. Example User (talk)) 03:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WP Policies/Standards[edit]

Hi Roger491127. I am an administrator who is completely uninvolved with any articles on aviation history, and I believe we have had no previous interaction. I've analyzed your contributions and read over Talk:Aviation history. You appear to be a single-purpose account, focused on Gustave Whitehead. While it is not forbidden that an editor specializes in a certain area, all editors are expected to comply with Wikipedia policies in regard to building an article. From reading through many of your contributions, I feel you do not have a solid understanding of the policies to which you are expected to comply. For absolute clarity, here's a shortlist of the expectations to which you should adhere:

  • WP:NOTSOAPBOX - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a medium for advocacy. Articles are not here to give "THE TRUTH", but to represent the consensus of reliable sources.
  • WP:V - "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source".
    • The policy specifies what is and is not a reliable source: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science". This means that scholarly books and journals are usually given greater weight than newspaper and magazine articles (as academic publishers tend to have higher editorial oversight). Please note also the word "independent" - in your particular case this means that any of Whitehead's notes or publications should not be used alone, and that personal observations/affadavits are likewise not independent.
    • The policy further states that "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources" Exceptional claims include "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science ... [and] history".
  • WP:NOR - Editors are forbidden from inserting original research. Per the policy, "This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". Editors should rely on secondary sources and cannot analyze, draw conclusions from, or interpret primary sources. Your talk page contributions show a focus on primary sources, and that needs to end ASAP. We are not here to debate the underlying points, but to present what reliable sources say.
  • WP:UNDUE - Articles must "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". The prominence of the viewpoint is not judged by the number of laymen who believe in the viewpoint, or contemporaries who might have believed it. The appropriate weight must be derived from the number of scholars and other reliable sources (not websites) which agree with that viewpoint. We should use the guidance in WP:V and WP:RS to determine which sources are most reliable - if the majority of newspapers give one viewpoint, but scholars overwhelmingly give a second, than the newspaper viewpoint should not be given as much weight in the article.

Your article editing and talk page arguments need to adhere to these policies. Single-purpose accounts which do not adhere to the policies generally end up blocked. Karanacs (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you study my contributions lists for my two user names and several ip-numbers over the years you can see that the accusation of being a Single-purpose account is totally unfounded. (Roger491127)

Who am I[edit]

I started editing in wikipedia with a router in 2005 and without a router earlier. My earlier username was Roger4911. My current ip-number is 82.249.177.148. Lightning broke my earlier router so I had to buy a new one around 2 years ago and that changed my ip-number. Earlier I had 82.249.177.39. I have made lots of edits without logging in, that's why I give you my ip-numbers too. I don't remember my ip-number before I started using a router in 2005 but it will be the same except for the end number.I have made lots of edits over the years, not aviation-related at all. I have now ended my contributions to the field of aviation. I have loaded up enough arguments for the next generation of wikipedia editors. Billions of people all over the world are now learning english, and in 10-20 years they will have confidence enough to help editing the english version of wikipedia. As they will be much better educated they will change a lot of articles about aviation and many other articles.As you can see from my contributions from 2005 and forward I can not be seen as a "Single-purpose account". Roger491127 (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Disruptive editing on Talk:Aviation history. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
My conclusion from that quote is that you are not currently able to edit collegially on this topic, so I have blocked you for 1 week for disruptive editing. There has been a wikiquette alert on your behavior, which was bumped up to AN/I, both of which you seriously disrupted trying to push your Whitehead information. It's not like you haven't been warned. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not intend to appeal this 1 week blocking. Thanks for explaining what the word collegially means in the wikipedia community.

But that was before you explained what the word collegially means. Now I know it was wrong to say that other editors have "too little education".Roger491127 (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aviation_history

Do you have problems with reading and understanding what you read, Example User (talk)and Sarek? I did not talk about my view, I think an inventor's influence on the development of aviation should be considered when writing about his (their) contributions to the history of aviation. But other editors here have told me that an inventor's influence on the development of aviation should NOT be considered, and it is their view I refer to. I was acting like a lawyer in a court-room in front of a jury. I was referring to evidence in the spirit of reason and rationality, I was not using foul words or referring to the authority of higher powers. Roger491127 (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It was wrong to ban me from editing for one week, since it was based on lack of reading and comprehension abilities of user Sarek, supported by user Example User (talk).

The earlier wikiquette alert was also wrong. It was based on me calling user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carroll_F._Gray something like singleminded or reasoning in strange ways. Since he is singleminded and reasons in very strange ways I was not wrong in pointing that out.

Then somebody accused me of being a single-purpose account, which I am obviously not. My latest contribution was to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity, where I added section 6.1 How far can one travel from the Earth?. This section has since been changed by two editors who polished the language but they did not change the factual content.

If you look for single-purpose accounts look at user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carroll_F._Gray whose contributions are practically only about Gustave Whitehead, and he is the reason why I have had to use much more energy and time on the article about Gustave Whitehead than I would have without his stubborn and very strange reasoning and editing which I have often deleted with the reasons: "unsourced, insinuation, original research".

In general I have been attacked by editors who can not beat me in knowledge or ability to argument for a certain view, so they have resorted to use Bureaucratic rules and the Bureaucratic collectivism of wikipedia editors, of which many are patriotic US-Americans, who want to defend and preserve popular American myths.

In the case of Gustave Whitehead versus the Wright brothers they want to preserve the myth that the Wright brothers were the fathers of aviation and the first inventors who built and flew a motorized airplane. The real truth, according to a lot of witnesses and documents, is that Gustave Whitehead was the first inventor who built and flew motorized airplanes. And the Wright brothers should mainly be remembered for sabotaging the development of an American aviation industry with all their patent wars and litigations. When USA went into WWI in 1917 all allied pilots, including American pilots, had to use British and French airplanes, because there were no American airplanes they could use. The responsibility for that falls completely on the Wright brothers. Roger491127 (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This non-mainstream opinion of yours is why you will forever be sidelined in aviation history articles. You are tilting at windmills, and the windmills are winning. Example User (talk)) 14:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Using my talk page as a notebook[edit]

I found this quote on a talk page: "Sorry, but I'm afraid I've become quite fed up with the increasing amounts of red tape and policy heaped on Wikipedia's editors and am now on indefinite hiatus. I'm also fed up with administrators reducing articles to footnotes to fit with policy and then not taking the time to fix or rewrite them properly. What's left of this article being a perfect example."

I have also noted big problems with wikipedia and I know now that it is in dire need of reformation. Exactly how that can happen and how I can contribute to it is something I will consider.

I was accused of being a single-purpose account above, which I am clearly not. Just look at the many different areas and articles I have contributed in.

If you are looking for single-purpose account take a look at Carroll F. Gray's contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20100910055823&limit=500&target=Carroll+F.+Gray Roger491127 (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My contributions with my earlier username Roger4911: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Roger4911

I could have used 2 months for my interest in Gustave Whitehead and left it behind me if it wasn't for the edit-warring caused by other editors who were very stubborn and partial, like this single-purpose account Carroll F. Gray, for example. Roger491127 (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your Gustave Whitehead additions were terribly one-sided, apparently intended to Right The Great Wrong of Whitehead getting ignored by history. Well, Wikipedia is not for that purpose, it is for discussing mainstream views in the main, and minor views in a minor way. Wikipedia is not for changing historiography. Example User (talk)) 08:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
And this Example User (talk), who obviously has my talk page and several other pages I am active in, on his watchlist, and he is quick to react on what I write. It feels like he is stalking me. That happens sometime, when you meet somebody you can't beat, so you develop a hate against that person, and follow him around to try to find any faults he makes so you can report him to the authorities, for example. Study the discussion pages of the articles Gustave Whitehead and Aviation history and you will find that Example User (talk) has not much original ideas to say, but he is quick to agree with anybody who is against me. Roger491127 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I just tested disconnecting my router to find out the ip-number I had before I bought my first router, so now I have 87.249.178.76. Strangely enough I can not find any talk pages or contributions for any of my ip numbers, even though I know I made a contribution without noting I was logged out a few weeks ago, and I know I had a talk page for an ip-number a long time ago, like 6 years ago. I wonder if the ip number changed when I bought a new computer 3-4 years ago? Now I will connect my router again. Roger491127 (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia problems and solutions[edit]

1: The influence of special interest groups has increased as the influence of wikipedia has increased.

The first time I noted an interest group was when I tried to contribute to an article named Oral tradition. I thought it was about oral traditions in general, the way knowledge and traditions were transported from generation to generation before we invented the written language. No matter what I wrote it was reversed and I quickly realized that the article was hijacked by a group of jews who meant that oral tradition was an exclusively jewish subject. I revisited the article recently and the jews were gone, probably moved to an article named Jewish oral tradition, a name they should have chosen from the beginning, of course.

Another example is the article Fascism, which was good 2 years ago, mentioning how the pope started the struggle against the workers movement and workers unions, by suggesting a new kind of workers union, all workers in a certain corporation should form a union, which then would have to have a strong solidarity with the corporation, the company, effectively defusing the earlier workers unions of poor workers in many companies who united against the richer social classes. The article also mentioned how corporatism developed into fascism.

Today the article has gone through intensive change. The discussion page has 36 archives, much more than any discussion page I have ever seen. The word pope has disappeared from the page but the word corporatism has reappeared after being gone for a period.

What has happened to the article is probably that first catholics discovered the article and deleted all references to the pope, Rerum Novarum and the word corporatism. Then a lot of neoliberals, who struggle for a minimal state, and a minimum of democratic influence, started inserting all kinds of corporatism according to their views, criticizing all kinds of state influence and making propaganda for raw capitalism.

So far during the era of wikipedia we have also seen a lot of US-American patriotism and strong influence groups in USA.

How to handle this problem is difficult to say. The last problem, US-American patriotism and strong influence groups in USA, will solve itself as billions of people all over the world learn English, 30-40 years into the future US-Americans will be a small minority in English-speaking wikipedia. To solve the problem of strong interest groups in general we could consider creation an international team of well-educated people who can counter the influence of strong interest groups. Or we will simply have to wait for better educated and impartial generations of world citizens.

2: The lack of reason and rationality

3: Wikipedia is not a democracy, polling is not an acceptable way to solve controversies, so we are told, but in reality the majority of editors of an article use their power to run over the minority, ignoring all arguments based on reason and rational thinking. Roger491127 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

4: User Example User (talk) is a strong believer in authority, he is referring to the academic author Gibbs-Smith as the only reference he is willing to listen to. That kind of belief in a higher authority is out of date. If he had lived more than 500 years ago, when the pope was the ultimate authority and everybody who dared to question his authority was burned alive or jailed for life, he would be in the right environment. Roger491127 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What part of WP:NPA do you think this statement follows? Example User (talk)) 15:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Around the year 1500 the humanists became very strong, putting forward old Greek ideas like freedom of speech, equality, democracy, using dialogue to forward our knowledge, reason and rationality, secularism. These new ideas tore down the authority of the pope and greatly reduced his power. Martin Luther, influenced by these humanistic ideas tried to reform the catholic church, but that resulted in Europe being split up between protestants and catholics. The old blind belief in authority was crushed and secularism became stronger and stronger in Northern Europe. The new motto became "May the best argument win."

This humanist change in the way to think made the modern world possible, with scientific and technical development, abolishment of slavery, the French revolution, workers movements, equality in courts of law, equality for women, greatly reduced power of kings and religious spokespersons, the metric system, etc.. Roger491127 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I read an article by Sue Gardner, who referred to other articles, about the decline of the number of new editors. I used Example User (talk) as an example of main problems of wikipedia, an unwarranted belief in authorities, bureaucratic collectivism, lack of reason and rationality, more embedded editors are throwing the whole book of wikipedia rules at new editors. A part of the reason is also that USA, where the English wikipedia is based, is one of the most religious and ideologically under-developed countries in the world. American patriotism colors many articles. Roger491127 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a lot of experience of academic literature, I studied at Uppsala University, founded in 1477, which was the first university in Scandinavia. Some academic literature is good, based on the authors own source studies, but most academic literature is like the book by Biggs-Smith which Example User (talk) refers to, a collection of old generally accepted "truths" found in other academic books and old encyclopedias, devoid of any own source studies, totally unaware of developments during the last 30 years. Roger491127 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove personal attacks[edit]

Roger, please remove your recent personal attacks against me. You have written here that I lack reason and rationality, that I have an unwarranted belief in authority, that I am only willing to listen to Gibbs-Smith as a reference, and that I would be in the right environment alongside authoritarians who burned alive those who questioned them. Previously, I have submitted a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alert about you which escalated into an ANI report about you, but there in front of an audience of administrators you added another personal attack. This behavior will not be tolerated for long... If you do not remove the recent personal attacks from your talk page I will request comments on your conduct at RFCC. Thank you. Example User (talk)) 16:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now searched and replaced your name with "Example User (talk)" globally on my user page. I hope that is a solution you can accept. If you avoid writing on my user page from now on you do not exist on my user page. I just used you as an example of a type of user who I see as a big part of the problem in wikipedia today so it doesn't matter if I don't mention you specifically, replacing your user name with "Example User (talk)" is just as good for my purpose, to point out some of the most important problems for wikipedia today. Roger491127 (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sue Gardner[edit]

Sue Gardner was asking for help to understand and fix the problems wikipedia is experiencing today and I am trying to help her by explaining how the kind of user you are acts and that is why new editors are quickly discouraged from editing wikipedia. "Example User (talk)" is strongly embedded in the wikipedia bureaucracy and knows all procedures which can be used to scare new editors and drive them away. You can not take criticism and react with the strongest possible attack, all in accordance with wikipedia rules and procedures, of course. And there are thousands of "Example User (talk)" who seem to have nothing better to do than attack editors who represent the modern world person, who is not acting like he should in a bureaucracy like the catholic church in medieval times or in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Sadly, wikipedia has a lot in common with such authoritarian bureaucracies.

A new editor can quickly find himself in a situation like Kafka in the book "The process" (in English also called "The trial"). I talked about this book when I was drawn into a formal process against me, for no good reason at all, actually, and another user told me that you can actually suddenly find yourself in a kafkaesque situation in wikipedia, so I am not alone in experiencing that feeling. Roger491127 (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The RFC procedure[edit]

I have spent my life studying. I am very good in arguing with logic, reason and rationality, like a very good lawyer in a court of law. So people who don't agree with me have to resort to attack me on some kind of technicality, taking my wording in a certain situation and blowing it up to a big thing and attack me with formal procedures, and that is exactly what has happened, as you can see on this user page.

If you study what I have done wrong in wikipedia you will not find anything worth mentioning. I said that a certain person had a very strange way of reasoning, because he has a very strange way of reasoning. This was blown up to a "personal attack" towards another user.

I tried to reason with other editors in the discussion page of Aviation history, using verifiable evidence, and as those who were against me could not beat me with reason, logic or rationality they banned me from editing for a week instead.

When a RFC was started about the conflict in the discussion page of Aviation history I thought the issue would be resolved by a group of impartial wise people who was not involved in the discussion before, but I was surprised when I found out that a RFC is conducted on the discussion page where the conflict between editors started.

That is like putting Rodney King in a room with the LAPD police officers who beat him up and tell them to sort out their conflict.

The RFC procedure must be changed. The conflict should be judged by impartial people who were not involved in the conflict to begin with. Roger491127 (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My level of knowledge[edit]

Recently I edited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity, adding a section saying that humans can travel a lot faster than the speed of light, if I expess it simply. That is the kind of editing which most people would think is wrong and should be deleted immediately, because most people know that nothing can travel faster than c. But I knew I was right, and it was an important fact to point out, so I added that section. A few days later I found that two editors, experts on the the theory of relativity, had polished up my language but they had not changed the content, because they knew as well as myself that I am right, so now there is a section there looking like this:

How far can one travel from the Earth?

Since one can not travel faster than light, one might conclude that a human can never travel further from the earth than 40 light years, if the traveler is active between the age of 20 and 60. So a traveler would never be able to reach more than the very few solar systems which exist within the limit of 20-40 light years from the earth. But that would be a mistaken conclusion. Because of time dilation, he can travel thousands of light years during his 40 active years. If the spaceship accelerates at a constant 1G, he will after 10 years reach speeds close to the speed of light, and time dilation will increase his lifespan to thousands of years, seen from the reference system of the Solar System, but his subjective lifespan will not thereby change. If he returns to the earth he will land thousands of years into the future. His speed will not be seen as higher than the speed of light by observers on earth, and he will not measure his speed as being higher than the speed of light, but he will see a length contraction of the universe in his direction of travel. And as he turns around to return, the Earth will seem to experience much more time than he does. So, although his (ordinary) speed cannot exceed c, his four-velocity (distance as seen by Earth divided by his proper (i.e. subjective) time) can be much greater than c. This is similar to the fact that a muon can travel much further than c times its half-life (when at rest), if it is traveling close to c.

I found a reference for this section too: http://library.thinkquest.org/C0116043/specialtheorytext.htm

I realized this myself a long time ago, and 20 years ago I asked a mathematician if he could give me the formula for the integral for the length traveled with a certain acceleration over a certain time, and he gave me the formula. 10 years later I found a scientific paper on internet saying exactly the same thing, with the same formula. Roger491127 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I first published this in FIDO-net around 1994. FIDO-net was an amateur network consisting of at most over 38 000 computers all over the world. On average each computer had 12 users, so half a million people all over the world had access to a free "internet" before people in general were allowed access to the real internet around 1996-1997. FIDO survived longest in Russia and similar countries. That's why you can find a lot of google groups named xxxxxx.ru. If google one day get their hands on the archives of the Swedish FIDO newsgroups you can find all my texts in swnet.filosofi. I dominated the Philosophy newsgroup for 5 years because I had a lot more education than the other participants. When the moderator for swnet.filosofi resigned in 1995 I was voted to be his successor. Internet in Sweden was built up by veterans from FIDO-net, so they helped FIDO-net with intercontinental connections, using the internet connections. We also had bridges over to the real internet, so we could send emails between the two nets. I ran a FIDO-net server day and night for 6 years and used a multitasking program for DOS so I could use the computer myself while people from Sweden, Germany and Finland logged in via a modem on the phone line and downloaded emails and files and uploaded emails. I was involved in discussions about proper conduct on FIDO-net so I was very aware of how to act properly on a network long before I started using the real internet. You can check up on my conduct in newsgroups from 1996 and find that I always act properly towards other participants, no matter how badly they act. You can look me up using my full name Roger Johansson or the username roger4911 which I used for a long time.

Conclusion: I was an old and very well educated person long before I got access to the real internet and I have always behaved very civilized and properly towards other people, because it is under my dignity to behave otherwise, and I possess enough knowledge, argumentation abilities, logic, reason and rationality to win every argumentation where I am right without resorting to using foul words or behaving in an improper way. And if I am wrong I have no problem admitting it. It takes a very sick environment to find any flaws in the way I behave towards other people. Roger491127 (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But I am a believer in freedom of speech so I don't hesitate to point out when somebody reasons in very strange ways, or when people act badly, or when institutions like the Smithsonian or the wikipedia bureaucracy act in faulty ways. Now I understand that that is a big NO-NO in wikipedia. You must choose your wording very carefully, like you were a member of the catholic church or similar organisations, because if somebody doesn't like you, they can easily find rules and procedures inside the institution to warn you or ban you for no reasonable reason at all. Roger491127 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict solving groups[edit]

Wikipedia should form a number of groups of people, from different countries, the members should have a high level of knowledge, be at least 30 years old, and of course be impartial. We would need around 100 such groups and each group should consist of 5-7 persons.

I can volunteer to be a member of such a group. My age is 61 years old and my level of knowledge in general is very high, and I am not a member of any interest group. I am not a member of any religion, I am Swedish so I was raised and educated impartially in a neutral country between the super powers during the cold war. So I am suitable for resolving conflicts, but should, of course not handle conflicts I have been part of or issues related to such conflicts. If I am assigned a case in which I can not be sure to be seen as impartial I will tell the others in the group and abstain from participating in that issue. I am only interested in the best and most verifiable truth, in accordance with the wikipedia rules. I am fully aware of the fact that there is no absolute truth, we can only strive for the version which today is the best version based on the verifiable evidence. If new evidence appear tomorrow we might be forced to change the truth (in wikipedia terms, the most verifiable facts).

With enough such conflict solving groups we can work against interest groups, national patriotism, political partiality and editors who have a solidarity towards each other. Such groups would be very much like the groups of investigators who investigate police violence. They can not be affected by a solidarity with policemen in general and, of course, especially not connected with policemen in the part of the country where the investigation takes place.

This would make wikipedia a lot better, because conflicts can be resolved by groups of impartial people.

This is a reply to the text by Sue Gardner at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_UpdateRoger491127 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Username confusion[edit]

During the summer I have been active with the username Roger4911 because I was not automatically logged into Swedish wikipedia although I was already logged into English wikipedia with the username Roger491127. So I registered in Swedish wikipedia with another username. That was a mistake because then my username in English wikipedia immediately changed to Roger4911.

I accepted this situation until a 5-6 weeks ago. Then I avoided Swedish wikipedia for more than a month, so I wouldn't be automatically logged in with that username, and then I registered the same username in Swedish wikipedia as I have used for years in English wikipedia.

Somebody should look into the problem that Swedish wikipedia changes the usename in English wikipedia, but you are not automatically logged into Swedish wikipedia when you are already logged into English wikipedia.

Or maybe I should try to find my settings in English wikipedia and check the option to be globally logged into all wikipedias under the username I use in English wikipedia. But I don't know where to find that setting.Roger491127 (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Alla prima[edit]

Now you've stuffed my merge. Please leave until this is complete! Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just suggested this merge 10 minutes ago. Thanks for executing it.Roger491127 (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, all done. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Should there be an article; History of aviation in Connecticut?[edit]

Should there be a separate article; History of aviation in Connecticut? Whitehead would certainly be listed prominently in the article, since he's the first aeronaut that I've found building aircraft in the state.Tomticker5 (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of TwistedBrush Pro Studio[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article TwistedBrush Pro Studio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Reads like an advertisement, no clear indication of notability either in this article or in a Google search.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  07:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

About deletion of TwistedBrush Pro Studio[edit]

See my arguments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TwistedBrush_Pro_Studio and please remove the "It is proposed that this article be deleted..." sign at the top of the article. I can add a number of links showing its notability in the article if you like. Roger491127 (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of TwistedBrush Pro Studio for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TwistedBrush Pro Studio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TwistedBrush Pro Studio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Sandstein  05:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nominating Articles for Deletion[edit]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TwistedBrush Pro Studio you asked "Can I as an editor nominate articles to an AfD for deletion or can only admins do such nominations?"

You do not need to be an admin to nominate articles for deletion. However, you should be sure to properly, and diligently research before you nominate an article for deletion. And given your recent participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TwistedBrush Pro Studio, be sure that you are not motivated to make a point. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)