User talk:TeeTylerToe

Welcome

Hello TeeTylerToe: Welcome to the English version of Wikipedia
Thanks to you for your active participation in this project. We hope that you will stay to contribute more and that you will continue to find the collaboration process enjoyable.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that began in 2001 and is free for anyone to use and edit under certain guidelines and principles that all users should understand and adhere to. These principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.		Help. How to get help.
	Tutorial. This tutorial is a basic guide to editing.		Your user pages and your sandbox. How to experiment and edit in your user space.
	Mentoring program. Request help in your first steps of editing.		How to start a page. Help on creating your first article.
	Things to avoid. How to avoid common errors and mistakes.		Style Guide. How to write in an acceptable style.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.		Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance		Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
This is your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss things with them. At the end of your messages you should always enter your signature by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing the button in the editor shown here in the picture. By the way, it is not necessary to sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted. My name is DBigXray. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, post {{helpme|your question}} on your talk page (this page), someone will quickly come up and attend to your query. And also, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist. Good Luck Editing!

DBigXray 08:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply on my talkpage

@Eraserhead1 and Memory Geometry article review / help appeal:

Hello!

Your edit at M982 Excalibur was not reverted in bath faith, but because you had not provided references. It is the responsibility of the editor who is adding/changing content to provide reliable references as it is difficult for other editors to confirm that edit. I hope you have learned from that. Happy editing in future. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith

I would encourage you to read WP:AOBF. Also, I am glad that you acted on my advice and added proper references to the text. Happy editing! Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

unsourced

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DBigXray 08:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding reference on wiki articles

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Hello TeeTylerToe! Please do not forget to add references for the content you add to Wikipedia. Adding a well formatted references is very easy to do.

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
2. Then click on "templates",
3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill as many details as you can,

This will add a well formatted reference that would be helpful in case the website link (web URL) becomes inactive (dead/link rot) after some time. thanks and regards --DBigXray 08:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• to use this message place {{subst:User:DBigXray/ref}} on User_talk

Talkback

Hello, TeeTylerToe. You have new messages at Anir1uph's talk page.
Message added 09:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see WP:BURDEN and please do not WP:AOBF, regards --DBigXray 09:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations etc.

I know from the above this this is getting boring but it probably isn't obvious from the above that many editors fighting the endless stream of vandalism have to make quick decisions about edits and make a judgement about whether there is a reasonable chance that they are correct and that references can be found later OR that they are spurious, inaccurate or simply vandalism. An informative edit summary also helps in making that judgement but by far the best is to provide the references with the edit. Accusing others of bad-faith isn't going to endear you to anyone ! Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

MIL-W-46374 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Acrylic, Timex and Luminous

Bridging (networking) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Amalgamation and Router

Arleigh Burke class destroyer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to LAMPS

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Your recent editing history at Marco Rubio shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to revert you one more time. I've opened up a topic on the material on the article Talk page. Per WP:BRD, please go there to discuss the material so a consensus may be reached as to what the article should include.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Higgs boson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. StringTheory¹¹ 18:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

It seems as though you are getting edit conflits. Rather than pasting your entire text into the edit window, check for changes. It appears that this is what is happening, so it appears you are adding vandalism. StringTheory¹¹ 18:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

see WP:EW

Your edits at Marco Rubio may violate that policy, and you are hereby warned against edit warring. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

S-70 models

G'day from Oz; I have again removed mention of the S-76 and S-92. Among other things, the S-70 weighs 2.5 times more than the S-76 and is 12 feet longer. They are not the same. To say they are, even if one was developed from the other, is incorrect. The same goes for the S-92. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Poljot Strela

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Poljot Strela requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --IShadowed 02:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TeeTylerToe. You have new messages at IShadowed's talk page.
Message added 03:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--IShadowed 03:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

S-70 vs. S-76

All Boeing 747s from the SP to the -8 have the same Type Certificate. All Boeing 737s from the -100 to the -900ER have the same Type Certificate. The Bell 206 and 206L have the same Type Certificate. The Bell 204, 205 and 210 have the same Type Certificate. The Bell 212 and 412 have the same Type Certificate. The MBB Bo-105 has a very similar drive train to the MBB/Kawasaki BK-117 but they are not the same aircraft and have different Type Certificates. The S-70 and S-76 do not have the same Type Certificate. The Sikorsky CH-53 and CH-54 have the same drive train but are not the same aircraft. The S-70 and S-76 have different drive trains, even the ref you added to the S-76 article says so: "Design of the commercial S-76 was begun during 1975, using scaled down rotor and tail components from the S-70" [italics added]. Different drive train, different fuselages of different dimensions, different landing gear of opposite configuration, different engines, different weights, different Type Certificates = Not The Same. To use your car analogy, you are trying to say that your Honda Civic is the same as a Honda Accord. YSSYguy (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

To which I have to add that you brought this issue to discussion at Talk:Sikorsky S-76, failed to win any support for what you want to add, because the refs you supplied indicate that you are wrong and the consensus was to not add your claims to the article, but you tried to add it anyway with refs that don't support your claims and had it reverted. Continued attempts to push your POV, such as adding your unsupported allegations against consensus, will be considered vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And that will result in a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two arguments. The first argument is the argument about the edit that is in question. Factually, the blades are shorter, the main rotor hub is the same, the main rotor elastometric bearing is the same, the transmission is of the same design, the bearingless tail rotor.

On what grounds do you base your claim that the edit was factually incorrect? What is the basis of your statement that the drivetrains are different?

On the second argument, are you saying type certification is the metric to judge whether one aircraft is the same as another? The Bell 206 and the uh-1 don't seem to have the same type certificates.

If the only difference between the ch-53 and the ch-54 is the fuselage, I would say they should be considered variants of the same type of helicopter.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The conversation on the S-76 talk page has ended and it is not going to continue here. There was a solid consensus to not include your unsourced claims, so it is time to drop it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe, WP:CONSENSUS went against you. You need to accept that, just like the rest of us have to accept some of our edits being rejected by consensus. (BTW, did you know that Reddit allows you to create your own subpage and be absolute king of it? It's a good deal for someone who has something to say but cannot get Wikipedia to accept it) You really need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass now. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Your recent editing history at Sikorsky S-76 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Guy Macon. ^{( Diff )} Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trying to ram your POV idea that the S-76 and the S-70 have the same transmission into the Sikorsky S-76 article using refs that do not support your text added. I have once again removed text you added that the refs you provided do not support. Your edit war to include your unsupported ideas have turned into mere vandalism and will be treated as such in the future. You have not convinced anyone at in the WikiProject discussion, on the article page or at dispute resolution. You have now resorted to insults, personal attacks and edit warring. It really is time to move along or, better yet, take up a new hobby. - Ahunt (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sikorsky S-76. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Sikorsky S-76 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Ahunt (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Sikorsky S-76. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am discussing the edit and am seeking consensus. This is why I didn't revert bushmaster's revert, and I would like to see a definition of what precisely is meant by "disruptive". Also, as I'm sure you looked at the edits, it was not a simple revert -> revert repeated over and over the way bushmaster portrayed it. As the discussion evolved in the talk page I changed the article, but partisans such as bushmaster reverted it without discussion to a version that was factually incorrect, unreferenced, and contrary to cited references. In the last change, I responded to a claim that replacing a planetary gear with a bull gear would mean that the entire transmission would no longer have any planetary gears. As it turns out, you cannot make a 77:1 reduction in a single step. In prior sikorsky transmission designs the first and last stage used planetary gears. In the S-70/S-76 design one of the two was replaced with a bull gear. The last edit I made included this factual correction as well as adding three more references in response to discussion on the talk page. Ahunt reverted this immediately with the revert comment being "Reverted vandalism", a blind revert done ignoring the discussion in the talk page. I reverted that. Then YSSY reverted that because two of the links didn't work. I corrected the links. Then bushranger declared that I was participating in an edit war... My reverts were made constructively per the discussion in the talk page. I do not see this as a valid reason for being blocked. Further, I have not seen a valid argument presented for the block. If this block is a result of bushmaster's claim that I made 6 reverts over the course of 17 hours, I do not see it as black and white as I have partly discussed already.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am discussing the edit and am seeking consensus. This is why I didn't revert bushmaster's revert, and I would like to see a definition of what precisely is meant by "disruptive". Also, as I'm sure you looked at the edits, it was not a simple revert -> revert repeated over and over the way bushmaster portrayed it. As the discussion evolved in the talk page I changed the article, but partisans such as bushmaster reverted it without discussion to a version that was factually incorrect, unreferenced, and contrary to cited references. In the last change, I responded to a claim that replacing a planetary gear with a bull gear would mean that the entire transmission would no longer have any planetary gears. As it turns out, you cannot make a 77:1 reduction in a single step. In prior sikorsky transmission designs the first and last stage used planetary gears. In the S-70/S-76 design one of the two was replaced with a bull gear. The last edit I made included this factual correction as well as adding three more references in response to discussion on the talk page. Ahunt reverted this immediately with the revert comment being "Reverted vandalism", a blind revert done ignoring the discussion in the talk page. I reverted that. Then YSSY reverted that because two of the links didn't work. I corrected the links. Then bushranger declared that I was participating in an edit war... My reverts were made constructively per the discussion in the talk page. I do not see this as a valid reason for being blocked. Further, I have not seen a valid argument presented for the block. If this block is a result of bushmaster's claim that I made 6 reverts over the course of 17 hours, I do not see it as black and white as I have partly discussed already.[[User:TeeTylerToe|TeeTylerToe]] ([[User talk:TeeTylerToe#top|talk]]) 18:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am discussing the edit and am seeking consensus. This is why I didn't revert bushmaster's revert, and I would like to see a definition of what precisely is meant by "disruptive". Also, as I'm sure you looked at the edits, it was not a simple revert -> revert repeated over and over the way bushmaster portrayed it. As the discussion evolved in the talk page I changed the article, but partisans such as bushmaster reverted it without discussion to a version that was factually incorrect, unreferenced, and contrary to cited references. In the last change, I responded to a claim that replacing a planetary gear with a bull gear would mean that the entire transmission would no longer have any planetary gears. As it turns out, you cannot make a 77:1 reduction in a single step. In prior sikorsky transmission designs the first and last stage used planetary gears. In the S-70/S-76 design one of the two was replaced with a bull gear. The last edit I made included this factual correction as well as adding three more references in response to discussion on the talk page. Ahunt reverted this immediately with the revert comment being "Reverted vandalism", a blind revert done ignoring the discussion in the talk page. I reverted that. Then YSSY reverted that because two of the links didn't work. I corrected the links. Then bushranger declared that I was participating in an edit war... My reverts were made constructively per the discussion in the talk page. I do not see this as a valid reason for being blocked. Further, I have not seen a valid argument presented for the block. If this block is a result of bushmaster's claim that I made 6 reverts over the course of 17 hours, I do not see it as black and white as I have partly discussed already.[[User:TeeTylerToe|TeeTylerToe]] ([[User talk:TeeTylerToe#top|talk]]) 18:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am discussing the edit and am seeking consensus. This is why I didn't revert bushmaster's revert, and I would like to see a definition of what precisely is meant by "disruptive". Also, as I'm sure you looked at the edits, it was not a simple revert -> revert repeated over and over the way bushmaster portrayed it. As the discussion evolved in the talk page I changed the article, but partisans such as bushmaster reverted it without discussion to a version that was factually incorrect, unreferenced, and contrary to cited references. In the last change, I responded to a claim that replacing a planetary gear with a bull gear would mean that the entire transmission would no longer have any planetary gears. As it turns out, you cannot make a 77:1 reduction in a single step. In prior sikorsky transmission designs the first and last stage used planetary gears. In the S-70/S-76 design one of the two was replaced with a bull gear. The last edit I made included this factual correction as well as adding three more references in response to discussion on the talk page. Ahunt reverted this immediately with the revert comment being "Reverted vandalism", a blind revert done ignoring the discussion in the talk page. I reverted that. Then YSSY reverted that because two of the links didn't work. I corrected the links. Then bushranger declared that I was participating in an edit war... My reverts were made constructively per the discussion in the talk page. I do not see this as a valid reason for being blocked. Further, I have not seen a valid argument presented for the block. If this block is a result of bushmaster's claim that I made 6 reverts over the course of 17 hours, I do not see it as black and white as I have partly discussed already.[[User:TeeTylerToe|TeeTylerToe]] ([[User talk:TeeTylerToe#top|talk]]) 18:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}