User talk:Factzombie

April 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Donald Campbell. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. C'mon guys, sort this out and stop the revert war. Talk:Donald Campbell awaits. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2013 (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. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

ANEW

I have reviewed the report filed against you and User:Sheppane at WP:ANEW about the two of you battling in Donald Campbell and Bluebird K7. With the exception of a couple of unrelated edits, you have only a handful of edits all to those two articles. Sheppane seems equally single-minded but they have far more edits than you do over a much longer period. Putting aside who's "right" about the content, each time you change the articles, you remove references. I find that disturbing. Also, you never use edit summaries and you have never contributed anything to either article talk page. Sheppane rarely uses edit summaries but at least (today) made one edit to the Campbell talk page.

I haven't decided what I'm going to do about this yet, but I insist that both of you talk to me about it. To keep all this in one place, I am going to leave a message on Sheppane's talk page to come here.

If either of you does not discuss this or cooperate, you risk being blocked for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

On Donald Campbell & Bluebird K7 I have made a number of significant factual and contextual contributions to these page over a number of years. It has been an abiding interest of mine for more than 35 years and I am considered an authority on this subject. Recently, I have had a number of my contributions altered by Factzombie. I am very happy to enter into any discussion with factzombie / wikipedia and cite any evidence you feel is missing. The cause of the accident has been fully researched in the book Donald Campbell, Bluebird and the Final Record Attempt, which had unprecedented access to the original analysis carried out by the Norris Bros, designers of Bluebird K7 after the accident. The analysis was completely re-assesd by Dr Keith Mitchell, and Mr Tony James, who was an MD at Norris Bros, and project manager for the Bluebird K7 refit in 1966. Extensive help was also sourced from Prof John Stollery, who was Professor of Aerodynamics as Imperial College and consultant to the Norris Bros / Campbell team. In conjunction with work carried out by Dr R Englar of Georgia Tech, who has done extensive work on hydroplane's operating in ground effect, the analysis of the causes of K7 accident is that which I have abridged in both the Donald Campbell and Bluebird K7 pages. This adds substantially to the explanation of the accident and helps clear up many misconceptions and heresy that have built up over the years. Furthermore, as part of that analysis, an enhanced copy of Campbell's final run commentary was also exhaustively re-examined, and this revealed a different interpretation of Campbell's last words and their context. I have included this on both pages, but have also included a helpful acknowledgement of the fact that this interpretation differs from previous version. In this way, readers are able to make up their own mind. I have also provided a context for Campbell's commentary and given background as to how it was delivered, effectively in real time as events were happening, and not as a reflection or interpretation of events. Neil Sheppard (sheppane) ( Sheppane (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC) )

Hello, I'm Steve and I post as 'factzombie'. I've also been a Campbell enthusiast for over thirty years though I have tended to remain silent in the online world. I have edited the section on Bluebird's final run because I believe that Mr Sheppard is in error on some small details and possibly that he is serving to advertise his own book a little too much. It is highly disputed among the Campbell enthusiast fraternity that the word 'actually' appears in the final commentary and indeed independent analysis of the first generation copy of this recording by authorities far higher than Mr Sheppard resulted in the final wording being extremely clear and not containing the word 'actually' as (solely) presented by Mr Sheppard. Furthermore, it has been shown several times that a large number of the basic facts regarding the cause of the accident as presented by Dr Mitchell in Mr Sheppard's book are in error, rendering a lot of his resultant calculations in error. Mr Sheppard has of late has moved to set himself apart as THE authority, with no other opinions- or even facts- being valid. This attitude has rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way. Such is the background to my edits. I do not intend to debate this any further on here. If Mr Sheppard wishes to continue to push his version as the right one, then let him have it- but he is rapidly wining himself no friends. Steve. Factzombie (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

From sheppane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheppane (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel I must have the right to dispute your entry above:

Hello, I'm Steve and I post as 'factzombie'. I've also been a Campbell enthusiast for over thirty years though I have tended to remain silent in the on-line world.

There are many thousands of people who have been Campbell enthusiasts for similar length of time or longer than you Steve. That is not in itself, a qualification.

I have edited the section on Bluebird's final run because I believe that Mr Sheppard is in error on some small details and possibly that he is serving to advertise his own book a little too much.

The contributions I have made are indeed drawn from the book I was author of, and that book is in the public domain, to be challenged by any party now and in the future. So far, I have seen no challenge , based on the scientific principals of engineering, physics and plain good old fashioned mathematics to any of the calculations or conclusions we reached in the book. I would also reiterate that the crash analysis chapter was proof read by Prof. J Stollery and Mr A E James who were intimately involved with the original engineering, aero and hydrodynamics on Bluebird K7 before the final record attempt, and in the subsequent crash investigation. Both parties described the analysis as a fine piece of work. I consider these two men to be the foremost authorities on K7 and the engineering principals that support her still living. Dr Mitchell and I would be very happy to discuss any engineering based findings that you have and where you find fault with our work.

It is highly disputed among the Campbell enthusiast fraternity that the word 'actually' appears in the final commentary and indeed independent analysis of the first generation copy of this recording by authorities far higher than Mr Sheppard resulted in the final wording being extremely clear and not containing the word 'actually' as (solely) presented by Mr Sheppard.

The commentary has been exhaustively analysed by myself, Mr David De-Lara, Dr Mitchell and Mr A E James, and we were able to make sense of a number of comments made during both high speed runs by Campbell and other Bluebird Team personal involved in the commentary. We have never claimed that this is the undoubted interpretation, merely the interpretation we feel to be most accurate. We have qualified our interpretation with a subscript on the Wiki entry page.

Furthermore, it has been shown several times that a large number of the basic facts regarding the cause of the accident as presented by Dr Mitchell in Mr Sheppard's book are in error, rendering a lot of his resultant calculations in error.

Both I and Dr Mitchell are not aware of these 'several times' where basic facts are incorrect. I would be happy to see any calculations that show our work to contain material errors that would effect any of our analysis. If your reference is to a dispute over the height of K7, or the weight added ballast, both those discrepancies had no effect whatsoever on the calculations, and that measurement discrepancy has been acknowledged in our book at the time of the printing of the second edition. This issue was thoroughly aired on the Bluebird Project website at the time.

Mr Sheppard has of late has moved to set himself apart as THE authority, with no other opinions- or even facts- being valid. This attitude has rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way. Such is the background to my edits. I do not intend to debate this any further on here. If Mr Sheppard wishes to continue to push his version as the right one, then let him have it- but he is rapidly wining himself no friends.

I certainly don't set my self up as THE authority. I would however say I'm willing to put in the work to ensure that this page is as comprehensive and accurate as it can be. I'm also not aware of having rubbed anyone up the wrong way, unless that reference is made in light of the fact that I have publicly supported Gina Campbell with regards to her wishes for her fathers boat, wishes that run contrary to some other parties. I am in this regard, 'prepared to get my nose punched'

As with so much in our current debates, the argument works just fine so long as you don’t have to submit any evidence. Are you prepared, in the interests of transparent debate, to enter into correspondence? ( Sheppane (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) ) Neil Sheppard