User talk:Bzuk

Image tagging for Image:XF8B-I (Navy).jpg

corrected http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&action=edit Edit this page

Montreal Airports

Hi. Just to let you know that I have left Montreal not disam b/c Montreal is served by 1 international airport (Mirabel does not have any passenger service as it is only served by cargo carriers). We only disam cities that are served by more than one airports with passenger service. I have posted a discuss on WP:Airports if you are interested in responding. Cheers and happy editing! Bucs2004

{{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

Have you considered simply formatting your references into the standard inline format, since your the only one that knows what source goes with what information? <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= }}</ref> I see you have been addingthe references, want me to help finish them? I formatted one to show you what it looks like. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

I see we have some common interests.

I remember reading of the cancellation of the Arrow in AvLeak when it happened. I was upset then, but had I known about the U-2 photos I wouldn't have been. No use for an interceptor with nothing to intercept.

My primary interest in Earhart is in the "mystery." I have arrived at an "opinion" which satisfies me, but not without much investigation and introspection.

I am a bit concerned when I see stuff like the outright assertion that radio communications were heard for days after she failed to land at Howland.

Although I was born in the first half of the last century, I missed the "golden age" though my library didn't.

I had the good fortune to talk to a number of the old heads and understand why some folks on the Earhart discussion page cannot comprehend the nature of the time and thus have problems with context.

I have been trying to get a feel for the contributors before I spend any time editing.

Most of my work on the Wiki has been on lighter than air and atomic weapons. Mark Lincoln

Gene Tierney

Sorry about that.Time to go to bed it is late. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.250.164 (talk) 05:01:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

F-86

I saw cleary where are you going, and not like it. But i would suppose that you are still in good faith. Let's repeat with last edition of F-86 performances:

---

And so i think you'll agree to read this part of Joe Baugher ency, that reports too the sources he used: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_13.html

Specification of F-86F-40-NA: Engine: One General Electric J47-GE-27, 5910 lb.st. Dimensions: wingspan 39.11 feet, length 37.54 feet, height 14.74 feet, wing area 313.37 square feet. Weights: 11,125 pounds empty, takeoff weight 15,198 pounds (clean), 18,152 pounds (2 200-gallon drop tanks), 20,611 pounds (2 200-gallon drop tanks plus 2 1000 pound bombs). Maximum speed 678 mph at sea level, 599 mph at 35,000 feet (at 15,352 pounds combat weight). Initial climb rate 8100 feet per minute. Altitude of 30,000 feet reached in 5.2 minutes (clean). 47,000 feet service ceiling. Combat radius 463 miles. Ferry range 1525 miles.

Now let's see how it matches my numbers:

• Engine: Joe's: J47-GE-27. Aerei: J47-GE-27
• Thrust: Joe's:5910 lbs= 2680 kg. Aerei: 2680kgs
• Dimensions:

Joe's: 39,11ftx37,54ftx14,74ftx313,37ft2.=11,92 m x11.44 x4,49 m x29,1 m2

Aerei:11,92 x11,44 x4,49 m x29,1 m2

=Matched

• Weights:

Joe's: 11,135-15,198-18,152-20,611lbs=5,050-6,893-8,233-9,351kg

Aerei datas: 5,046--6,894-8,234-9,349 kg

=Almost 100% matched

• Performances:

Joe's 678/599 miles at 35,000ft= 1,091/964 kmh at 10,600 m

Aerei: 1091/964 kmh at 10600 m

=Matched

• Climb; Joe's 9,150 m in 5,2 min Aerei: 9,150 m in 5,2 m
• Ceiling: Joe 47000ft=14335 m .Aerei= 14325 m

=Matched over 99%

• Range:

Joe's 465 m and 1525 m ferry= 747 km-2452km

Aerei=745-1795 (internal)-2454km (ferry)

=Matched almost 100%

Weapons: Joe 2x747 l + 2x454kg bombs. 907+1100-1200kg fuel+200/300kg tanks=well over 2 t.

Aerei: max. 2455 kg total, of which 1100 kg weapons (possible that included M2 cartridges, 1,600 crts x 0,1 kg each are 160kg+907=1077)ù

SOLUTION: Take max weight and clean weight and the result will be, 20.611-15,198 lbs=2455 kg! Exactly the same weight indicated in Aerei. 100% matched.

All datas sobstantially matched one each other, with an average of over 99%. Minor differences of 1-10 km are simply ridicolous to tell as 'significatives at all.

Dimensions matchings, weights are almost exactly the same, speed and climb are equals, range and endurance are pratically equals, weapons load matching as well.

What about sources? If i presented them, they will been obviousely unreliables-rubbish-BS. Well, judice yourselves:

Sources: Joe's:

• F-86 Sabre in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992.
• The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner, MacDonald, 1963.
• The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.
• The World Guide to Combat Planes, William Green, MacDonald, 1966.
• The World's Fighting Planes, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
• Flash of the Sabre, Jack Dean, Wings Vol 22, No 5, 1992.
• F-86 Sabre--History of the Sabre and FJ Fury, Robert F. Dorr, Motorbooks International, 1993.
• Thirty Seconds over Sargodha, John Fricker, Air Enthusiast, Vol 1, No 1, 1971.

Aerei:

• Aerei 6/79
• Aeri modellismo 5/92
• Air Enthusiast 17
• F-86 in action (Squadron signal)

---

Moreover, the not exactly silly site: http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/northam/f-86f.htm has datas widely matching mines.

Just to realize how silly these discussions are, seen how i am seen as the Antichrist of wikipedia.--Stefanomencarelli 09:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hi, I see that you've started to impose a different style for references, attribution of footnotes etc (ref Glenn Curtiss [1]). This new style would appear to conflict with the style guide at Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, and contradict with the model at [2] which is recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military.

I don't want to blow this out of proportion, but almost all individuals with articles under the scope of your aviation project will also be covered by biography & other such classifications which use the "normal" style. I can't see how to square this. Regardless of the merits of one style over the other, could you point me towards any discussions inside & outside your project to review the impact of this choice, so I can understand what this means to editors? TIA, Ephebi (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• thanks for the fulsome reply - I don't have any problem at all with the content used by the cite or references that you refer to, & having worked on both sides of the Atlantic I've seen plenty of different ways of citing in use, including the styles you mention and their predecessors! FYI, to support what you advocate and to impose consistency on an article, you might consider using the templates at the crib sheet here. (The only down-side is that the in-line {cite=} text is ugly for editors, but then again, so is a full in-line citation. To see an example take a look at London congestion charge which is being proposed as an WP:FA.) Ephebi (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem just comes down to the nested reference section, which jars if you are used to the other parts of the WP project. This only refers to one sub-section, such as "==References==" or "==Notes and references==", etc. The use of multiple columns, sizing, etc, is all good stuff and doesn't throw up any inconsistencies, in fact I've been using this for a while on big articles. As far as I see, theres just a basic contradiction between the terminology & nesting for references that you advocate and the style that is recommended in WP:REF and refined further by the military biography folks. As an editor, I'd appreciate a pointer to any discussions where the usage and impact of this new style has been assessed & agreed. If you could get that up on the Aviation project page, life might be easier.
• As it is now, there are going to be plenty of biography articles (for example) which may have aviation content but will start off using the vanilla WP guide or wiki-bio guide that assume a different interpretation of your "standard". And if they were to adopt the same format as respected biography publications like the DNB (Sources/Archives/Likenesses/ etc...) or ADB ( Select Bibliography/Author/.. ) ...

Cheers, Ephebi (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Category

Does Category:Recipients of US Distinguished Flying Cross need to be changed to have a U.S. in it? Snowman (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

F-86 white space eliminated

Bill, Why did u revert my tweak of the pics to eliminate the white space?? YOU like all the white space?? I tried 4 or 5 different combos with left/center/right and different px sizes. My fix was the simpliest and most logical. Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Never used or seen Mozilla Firefox, heard of it tho. I used Explorer 7, and all that white space is elimiated with the map on the left and the two pics immediately on its right. Taaa daaa. I have one more idea to fix it. Then take another look, please. If it doesn't work, please take a shot at it. Thanks, Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look now> Lance.....LanceBarber (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's either one or the other- your version works in older browsers while mine works best in the Firefox browser, no problem with me, take one last look at it in either version and change it to the one you think looks best. My changes were all predicated on making a two-column list of operators but it necessitated alterations to the other two sections and a move of four graphic images (two photographs, one map and one 3-view drawing). FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

Lets use the single column format with multiple pics along the right side as many other articles are oriented. Other a/c articles like the F-100, F-104, and F-4 have one column with some text under each or most counties. I can not recall any a/c articles with a 2 column orientation. THe single column with pics along the right side is common, neat, clean, and "eye" balance, thus being viewable under various browsers. --->> Idea, how about you and I do a joint effort in researching and updating the 86 article with a touch of data or info on as many county operations and give more depth to this section. A list of operator is nice , but some details under each one would be beneficial. What do you think? ... Lance LanceBarber (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I've begun editing in some operators data. Could you please find some models, numbers, dates, and assignments for 86s delivered to Iran and Iraq. My book does not have any data. Thank you. Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

US

The recent discussion the the "F-4 phantom operators" page which you contributed to indicates that U.S. is used instead of US, but user BillCJ has changed my edits back. I have just checked the discussion on the talk page and it has not been advanced since the U.S. consensus that I was working form. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quiet, shhh. (Sorry for that this is misplaced - intentional) One of the persons objecting but then withdrawing the oppose is very specific that it be correct. Your changes are not quite correct (italics). If it does pass, I'll let you know what the differences. Ok? For now, let sleeping dogs lie. Archtransit (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter references

If you have time, I've redone most of the references into an MLA format...sort of. I was moving under a timeline, so I wasn't being uber strict on format. Also a quick read through the reworded History section and what you think of the Uses section would be appreciated. All, only if you have time. Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! I shall remember all the little things as well. --Born2flie (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Bill, what is the Canadian spelling of manoeuvre/maneuver? Thanks - BillCJ (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

page names

Several individual named aircraft have had name changes today, including "Shoo Shoo Baby (aircraft)" and "The Pink Lady (aircraft)". A lot of the named B-17 aircraft use the name pattern "Aircraft Name (B-17)", but "Aircraft Name (aircraft)" is probably clearer for most readers. I started many of the stubs. Is there a wiki standard or wikiproject aircraft style for this? I will be grateful for your opinion. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hey Bill - you've been here more than long enough now - how would you feel about an RfA? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries :) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:BA Swallow.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:BA Swallow.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter

I moved the article to this name since that is what was used in the article as the name for the airline. I have no idea what Kelowna Flightcraft is so I can not say what would happen to an article on it. I will say that it is apparently not the owner of Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter based on that article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Kelowna Flightcraft is not listed as the owner of Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter in that article. So either the article is in error and should be corrected or your information is in error. The question you pose is can Kelowna Flightcraft meet WP:CORP? I don't know what that answer to that question is. If you have sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS it may be possible to write an article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Bill, I've replied on my talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hughie Edwards

Hi mate, been away for a couple of days and can't really talk right now but if you can bear with me a bit I'd be happy to discuss. Do you want to briefly tell me what you had in mind? I know the References are very basic on that one - this was not an article I initiated, just one I saw needed some cleaning up in a hurry (think I threw in the infobox/picture as well) so I don't take full responsibility for it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Section Title

Well it appeared awkward to have "Variant" by itself as a section.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747

I see your changes to the references format. There was some discussion about this and I thought we were moving slowly towards a "Retrieved 2007-12-13" rather than "Access date". The reason is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style uses "Retrieved". Access date is usually used in the source code for certain reference template but the word "access date" doesn't appear in the article after the computer server processes the source code.

Any opinions to help us resolve this question. It may seem minor but I'd like to prevent a future issue where someone says "the references are wrong...." Archtransit (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

'Description Missing' and 'Untagged' on photos

Sometimes the copyright issues have me tearing my hair out!! I'm using the templates you've provided, yet in my photo gallery in Wikipedia Commons I have at least one photo labeled UNTAGGED yet, as far as I can tell they all have copyright tags. Mate, for a simple yobbo like me this is frustrating So what's the problem? The site describes the copyright as "Unknown" - unless I can trace this photo back to its original source this template seems to be the most appropriate. As for the Description Missing; again the only description I can provide is my own. Still learning....Minorhistorian (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

here's the UNTAGGED

File information

Description	P-51Ds, 356 FG. Dispersal, Martlesham Heath 1944.
Source	http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/U-S-Air-Force/martlesham_heath.jpg
Date	2007-12-12 (original upload date)
Author	Original uploader was Minorhistorian at en.wikipedia
Permission (Reusing this file)	This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published before 1978 and it was first published outside the United States and US copyright formalities were not complied with and it was in the public domain in its home country on January 1, 1996. Category:P-51 Mustang Category:North American Aviation

49th Parallel

Moved :) --Rlandmann (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747 references

Thank you for your lengthy message about references. It wasn't too long a message. The topic of references has been discussed with the others. Perhaps your expertise will offer guidance. You are also welcomed and encouraged to help convert the references to a uniform standard. It is too much work for one person to do at one setting. I did a bunch but there's much work to do. The questions need to be resolved include:

1) Retrieved date or Access date. It seems that Retrieved date is the preferred method. Access date appears in one of the templates but the actual word "access date" will not appear in the text that the reader sees. The reader can only see the word if they edit and look at the source code.

Therefore, it was concluded that Retrieved date is preferred over access date unless you can point out additional considerations (which I'm always interested in considering).

2) The exact formatting method. Wikipedia allows editors to choose. Your advice in choosing the best method is welcomed. The usual editors of the article haven't decided yet. One problem with the often used citation template is that it is long and negatively affects the readability of the source code, making it more difficult to edit. It is also very difficult to enter the information compared to some of the simpler methods.

I think there was complete agreement to use one style of references.

The preliminary choice, I thought (but with no heated debate) was <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/nkorea_us North Korea replies to Bush letter], Yahoo News, Retrieved 2007-12-14</ref> . Please advise us if this is wrong!

which would appear as

Archtransit (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphan page

Hi, I have found a page that you might improve a little or save from deletion. It is not a page I am particularly interested. see "Larry Reithmaier". Snowman (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

♠ I started working on it.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Nikumaroro_islands_satelit_ikon.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nikumaroro_islands_satelit_ikon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusjih (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EarhartBook.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:EarhartBook.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

See my talk page

for response. Usually, I respond here but since the discussion could benefit others, I'll reply on my talk page. Archtransit (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see! Need to change commas to periods so the capital R is ok. The examples given don't use a comma so we shouldn't use a small "r". Archtransit (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

AG Bell's nationality

The issue was not resolved. You have perpetrated a blatant falsehood. You have erased the indisputable fact the Bell was an American. He was also Scottish, but you can't deny that he was American. Please don't continue with this vandalism. I left in his Scottish nationality, but you have not left in his American nationality. Penser (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)penser

I've replied to this user on his talk page. The page covers all three, and notes Bell's American identification at one point in his life, and appears balanced per WP:NPOV. Nobody is yet in violation of 3RR, but another revert by either party would end up in such territory. Orderinchaos 15:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You claim there is consensus on this issue, but that's not true. My arguments in the discussion section, which I will reprint below, have never been refuted:

"Nationality is not some vague issue like degree of fame or greatness. It is black and white and easily verifiable. He was born and raised in Scotland, thus obviously he was Scottish at one time. He also became an American citizen, so it's undeniable that he was an American as well. Which country (of Scotland, Canada and the US) were most influential in his inventiveness? Well, they all seemed to have played a role. That's for the historians to hash out, but his nationality isn't an area of ambiguity."

Your justification for deleting the American label? Penser (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)penser

User:172.209.8.246

I'll keep a watch on the user and block him/her if there is one more undesirable edit. If this is a case of possible sockpuppetry, it requires more investigation -- you may report it to WP:ANI. You can report further vandalism from this IP to WP:AIV -- that will result in a faster block since many admins (including me) have the page on their watchlist. utcursch | talk 07:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No. 112 Squadron RAF

G'day Bill. Could you do me a favour and have a look at No. 112 Squadron RAF, which I have just knocked together, to see if there are any howlers? :-) Cheers, Grant | Talk 05:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC Eurofighter Typhoon

Since BillCJ first alerted me to the situation, I've had a brief look. Since the disputes are spread across a range of articles, the RfC should be on general user conduct. To initiate the process, go here and scroll down until you find the "Create User Conduct RFC" button. Clicking it will give you a blank template with instructions. Since I'm currently trying to talk to the user in question, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to offer any further advice on this topic just now. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a Wunnerful Life-a

Okay, okay. :-D –TashTish (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my edits to the Enola Gay article

Hello M. I've had to make revisions to all of your edits to this article. One of the first things to do when you come upon a new article is to read it carefully to determine how the article is "crafted." Most of the main articles in the WP:Aviation Project group use a set style guide and it is easiest to adopt that style rather than try to work in a new set of writing/organization/spelling/reference conventions. If you would like, I can provide more details as to the MoS of the group. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Yes, please provide me with more details. I notice on your discussion page that there is a lot of talk about how to format references. My understanding was to use this format:

so if a different editing convention is being used for military references, please provide me with links on my discussion page, thank you.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hooo, Boy! What a lot of reading! I think I'll keep off of the Enola Gay page for a while! Now I have a librarian friend at Columbia University and I think that he'll get a kick out of what you just gave me! On another note, I just "weighed-in" on keeping the Natalee Holloway page. It concerns me that Wikipedia editors are adamant about deleting a page, especially when there can be good material(s) gleaned from the information contained therein! Getting back to the Enola Gay story, it was interesting to read about Tibbets recently and his passing away. I "smelled" 'revisionist history' in the air being hatched when I had heard about the controvesy of the plane itself. I'll try to read and consider the materials that you gave me in my spare time, and thanks!--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Shhh. quiet. The 747 article is being considered for FA. There was criticism that the references were not all of the same style. One very thorough editors who objected checked and finally gave approval. The Colson ref has been changed to a different format. Consider changing it back (preferred) or shhhhh....quiet..and no more changes to the refs. Archtransit (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular sovereignty

Although I see nothing wrong with holding a survey, I do have misgivings about holding a binding straw vote of the CFD type: what do we do to get a broad sample and avoid a Lecompton Constitution type affair ala bleeding Kansas. What is the minimum turnout, what type of majority will rule a Simple majority or a Supermajority? will everyone who has taken part in the edit history be solicited or just a handful? And will outsiders and administrators be polled to gain a impartial consensus? Why do we only have the options of Keep and Remove when many want alternatives such as keep and clean, move to a separate relevant article, or other non listed options. Sorry for taking your time with such questions. Freepsbane (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the response.Freepsbane (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

F-22 Again

I'm still digesting the issues involved, but what I like about "Graptor's" comments are a clear attempt to forget about the man and examine the message. There's no question that User:Financialmodel's editing style is problematic, but what we need to be doing is to examine the actual claim. This is probably most easily done by treating his various grievances individually, and since the F-22 cost is the one he seems most vocal about at the moment, let's have a look at that first. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. And frankly B, you're the one missing the point here. I've said repeatedly that I think Financial is a bad editor, that his methods are wrong and that he's deliberately trying to be malicious. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that when he went on the attack he actually found a real, legitimate problem and hammered on it for all it was worth. Instead of pointing it out and suggesting how to fix it, he accused people of deliberate deception and bias, and demanded a very particular fix. He didn't act in good faith, trying to gain a consensus among the editors that there was a problem and then get it fixed, thus making wikipedia better... he used it purely as a launchpad for an attack on the people involved. He was deliberately trying to provoke his perceived enemies by being offensive and making demands. That's called 'trolling'. Most places people get banned for that kind of thing, and he probably will here too if he keeps it up. Problem is, a lot of people responded pretty much in kind. Trick is, all that is completely beside the point, except as regards the actual dispute between the editors and Financial's eventual punishment for his methods. The only thing he actually did that was right was to bring sources. Everything he said is useful. Most of it only for getting him punished, but some of it can actually help improved the encyclopedia.

And fact is, except for improving the encyclopedia, all that is completely beside the point. It has no relevance at all to the actual content of the article. Fact is fact, documents are documents. You've gotten so sidetracked by this one bad user that you're more worried about his actions than the point of this project, which is making a bloody encyclopedia. And frankly if the troll manages to provide some stuff that's useful for that purpose...well take it and run with it instead of discarding it out of hand because of who brought it up.

Simple fact is, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum. We're interested in fact, not opinions. He went about it wrong yes, but that doesn't change the fact that there IS a problem which WILL cause people to come away with inaccurate information. He blew it completely out of proportion but it is there. He even provided links to all sorts of documents which will really help the legitimate editors in fixing the problem. Unusually kind for a troll.

Simple fact is, I don't care two cents about Financial. He's probably going to get banned or end up in self imposed exile if he doesn't change his ways, and that's great. But what I'm worried about here is the article itself. That's what's really important, not one guy that thinks he's right about everything.

And finally, my IP is dynamic, don't count on me seeing comments on 'my' talk page.

-Graptor 66.42.151.80 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by

Sent to your @shaw address. Hope that is the correct one.Downtrip (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)