User talk:CraigWyllie

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

Personal Reminders[edit]

Kept a few I might still want to refer to someday, remove as I think they become un-necessary

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Help pages
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_Page_Help/Help_Desk to ask for help
Wikipedia:RFC RFC for consensus building and dispute resolution
Wikipedia:DR Dispute Resolution
{{helpme}} on talk page to summon help.


An RFC on content you have commented on has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz talk 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: deleted image[edit]

Sorry about that, looks like the image did have a valid fair use rationale. :I Whoever fixed it forgot to remove it from the "disputed images" category, and as such I accidentally swept it in with a bunch of other images. east.718 at 00:26, January 12, 2008

Ah, I see. I thought about removing the notice myself - but I presumed it would be a conflict of interest or not appropriate, seeing as I was the one creating the rationale. And even if I had removed the notice, I probably would have missed removing the category! I didn't realize that sweeps/etc were keyed off of the category. My bad! CraigWyllie (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


I apologize for creating an erraneous redirect from to Tiger Direct. I must've assumed that was a part of Tiger Direct or something near there. Thanks There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don't. (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. CraigWyllie (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

dark ages[edit]

see comments below. Your discusiion was sensible and I wonder if you'd be willing to weigh in now and try to improve the situation at Dark Ages.

I have just read through 50 pages of Talk on Dark Ages, and it reveals a Wiki article that is in deep trouble. 29 people contributed comments complaining about the one-sided polemics against the term "Dark Ages." 7 people argued that to talk of the Dark Ages is invalid and that the article need only represent this one point of view -- but mostly the rejecttion of diverse views is the work of two people, stbalbach and Doric Loon. Loon compliments stbalbach for "assiduously maintainging and defending this article over the years," meaning, beating back all other contributors and defending their personal POV. They don't seem to be ashamed that during this time the artcle lost its status as a Good Article, way back in Mary 2006. Some defense! In the talk pages, stbalbach and Loon state openly that they consider the Dark Ages not dark, and that their opinion is the only valid one, and the only one that may be included. For ex, stbalbach: "Its impossible to defend the use of the term (Dark Ages) with what we now know." Any alternate, referenced quotes or information are undone and dismissed as not good references. This is Orwell's 1984 - some pigs are more equal than others. Marskell said it very well back in 2005, and its still true now in 2008: "It's disappointing to see revisionism has won out. 'the middle ages were not dark, therefore there can be no causes of see stbalback beecoming a is still possible to walk into a respectable university and hear the Dark Ages discussed...unfortunately readers of wikipedia won't be able to find out...." One poor user of Wiki wrote his frustration on teh talk page, that none of the information he was hoping for on The Dark AGes was here, just polemics. His complaint was trashed. This page is crying out for arbitration, to stop a small number of people from domineering and preventing balanced POV. It's time to rebel against the dictatorial rule of stbalbach and his henchwomen. I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Judging from stbalbach's page, he is very active - does that make him impregnable or is there something that can be done? There is really no point in trying as individuals to improve the article while he is in place as the self-appointed Dictator of Truth. Now is the time for concerned people to speak up. If you agree that stbalbach's reign of power should end, and the article should include references that support the term Dark Ages, and explain why, so as to have a balanced POV, please speak up now. More experienced Wikipedians - what can be done?--Cimicifugia (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia


There's nothing to be done. As they define it the term itself is POV, and you have to prove otherwise with modern academic references otherwise your viewpoint isn't valid. And no-one in modern academic research would dare claim that a given age is "less just" or "less happy" than any other, because that'd be mean or dis-respectful and who are we to judge anyone else based on "modern perceptions of right and wrong, good and bad"? Same as no-one is allowed to say a given (('dictator' ... whispered quietly)) was a bad man. That's "judging somebody".
I will say one thing - at least "Neutral POV" strictly applied means no-one from the other side of a given argument can cram absolute falsehoods down people's throats. It is a level playing field, and people reading get to make their own value judgements. That's probably a good thing! CraigWyllie (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing up that photo I uploaded. It was a scan of a 35mm print and the colour was never ideal. Your rework is an improvement! - Ahunt (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. A lot of the photo re-touches done on Wikipedia are un-necessary or IMHO make things look artificial and over-done, but that one cried out for an attempt. Thank-you for releasing it PD! I find it amazing we used to have a carrier, and now we don't. Could hunt a lot more pirates with a small flattop :) CraigWyllie (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
We (Canada) actually had two carriers, the Bonny and the Maggy (oh, yes and briefly the Warrior). Along with the Tracker they are missed by some of us old-timers! You are quite right, while they were a bit outclassed in the Cold War (as an old Cold Warrior I can say that!) they would have been very good anti-terrorist weapons. - Ahunt (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Using cockpit WX radar for terrain mapping[edit]

Hi Craig,

It is a bit late, but I have replied to the discussion on the talk page of Air New Zealand flight 901, about the possibility of their weather radar showing the land beneath them. BTW, that same WX radar CAN pickup and display small blips, when other aircraft are in the area too. [[1]] EditorASC (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting! I never would have guessed that pilots actually control the 2d plane that the radar is operating in. CraigWyllie (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)