User talk:CQJ/archive01

RfA 6/7/06 (failed) (0-9-1)

ATTENTION

This is an archive of talk messages recieved from April 2006 to July 9, 2006. Please do not respond to or tamper with these messages as they are not monitored for changes.

Please go to my main talk page to leave me a message.

Order of the Arrow

Because you seem to be one of few users with substantial experience both on Wikipedia and with the Order, I'd like to ask you to take another look at that article, where a good chunk of material was removed for the purpose of maintaining the order's "secrecy". In particular I'd like you to weigh in on the inclusion of the song lyrics and the WWW situation. I'd also like to ask if you know of any sources which could be used to cite what is already in the article. Thanks in advance. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to give up on the article. Just continue to assume good faith on the talk page. I think a good approach would be to look things which can be verified and individually establish that they should be included in the article. I believe that most reasonable editors will eventually start acting in the interest of Wikipedia if they are dealt with fairly and nicely. In particular I'd like to ask you to stay in that discussion because of your experience as an order member. Keep up the good work. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What do I have in mind? I want the OA article to be a good article and I want it to include as much information as is verifiable. The song lyrics and WWW come to mind, although I have only been able to find a verifiable source for the first so far. Basically, I want to be sure that Wikipedia is not self-censoring and that content decisions on that article are made on the basis of verifiability rather than some user's interpretation of OA secrecy. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

List of BSA Councils

To set the scene, there is a debate on whether a page on AFD should be a list or a redirect on the List of BSA councils page. I read some of the statements and tried to put a new perspective into the dispute.

Once again, with all due respect to you, Rlevse, remember that you're dealing with Scouters. We don't like to be called wrong, and Lord knows that every good Scouter on the Wiki has every little shred of evidence to support his viewpoint and can quote every word, phrase, diagram, and page number from the books he uses on a regular basis. Once again, I think that part of the issue is that "consensus" is formed based upon three or four opinions, and then action is taken. I know I could write a heckuva article just on my council that's ten times more helpful than the Scouting in Indiana article, talking about history and so-on, but that's beside the point. I would urge everyone to seek true consensus before moving to act, and I think that Kurt brings up a valid point in regards to using the talk pages to settle dispute. I don't think it's fair to use three or four points of view to create consensus, and I think that's Kurt's main point. KC9CQJ 05:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You just called others and I wrong, so what's the difference? If you want to add to Scouting in Indiana or any other article, please do so. There aren't enough of us to work every single article to the fullest. Rlevse 10:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rlevse, you're reading too much in between the lines. I was saying that NONE of us like to be proven wrong and can support his or her view from whatever angle possible. My point is that this is an instance where consensus has been created off of four opinions, from what I can see, and perhaps consensus needs be actively solicited before action is taken. My comment to Scouting in Indiana specifically refers to the point that I could write a full article on my council alone, but I haven't, following Scouting WikiProject guidelines which have been established. Frankly, I don't see how you can have the standing of accusing anyone of being short or un-Scoutlike with some of your comments to other members of the Scouting community here, myself included, especially when every communication that I've had with you has been in the most positive light that I can articulate. I don't appreciate you attempting to turn me into a bad guy and taking your attitude out on me when I'm trying to help you out and understand someone else's viewpoint in the first place, and perhaps it's that very thing that keep Scouters like me away from active participation in the project. Check your facts, I'm the one who gave you props for doing a good job creating a standard at Order of the Arrow. KC9CQJ 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're reading way too much into this. But now you're doing some of the same things you're accusing me of but I see no reason to belabor the point. I know I'm not perfect but neither is anyone else. I am well aware of your help on the OA article and you have no reason accusing me of not knowing so. I appreciate any help you provide to the Scouting articles. It's impossible to please everyone on Wiki. I think everyone should take a wiki break here. Rlevse 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Touche. Point taken and accepted. Why didn't you respond on my user space ;-)? KC9CQJ 03:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't respond here last time because I don't like broken or "doubled" threads. I only do that sometimes to ensure someone reads a message. YIS, Rlevse 09:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Scouting article work

If you are getting this, it is because you do or did work on Scouting articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting#Participants_and_primary_areas_of_interest).

As the Scouting WikiProject has been formed since early January 2006, we've had many great improvements made in this area of Wiki and I want to personally thank everyone for their help. We don't always agree on things, but we keep moving forward. YIS, Rlevse 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cradle of Liberty

I noticed that after you proposed a merge, you didn't discuss why you did it. I rempoved the merge because I think the Scouting in PA article is too long, and that the Cradle of Liberty article can stand alone. -- evrik 16:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Local Scout articles

See Local Scout articles for the additional detail I wrote on the "Scouting in State" and smaller articles. Thanks for the suggestion. Rlevse 00:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

VfD on Jim Fraser

There has been a further developmet. In checking the page hsitory, I found someone replaced an Australlin politician stub with the nn bio. Restored to Australlian politican stub. Replaced afd tags.01:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The version up now is about the pol. If reversion continues to be a problem, we may want to seek s/protection. cheers :) Dlohcierekim 04:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim Senor Fraser

The article about the coach is back up as Jim Senor Fraser. Should we renominate for AfD?? We were going to delete this the first time around. Article claims "he competed for the nation in the Pan-Am Games." That makes him notable, right? Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 04:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you might say I'm well, AIMless. Right now, I'm also sleeepless, too. Can't win. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 06:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Vandals

Other vandal, 70.51.52.253, has also been blocked. Thank you for poiting him out. Joelito (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kc9cqj! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a test message generated by VandalProof by KC9CQJ to test the notify function. do not respond to this message

Question

Do you get paid to catch vandals are do you just have a lot of time on your hands? (unsigned from 24.91.176.126)

It's my way of giving back to Wikipedia. If I weren't looking for vandalism, I'd be reading it and not accomplishing anything at all. :-) KC9CQJ 17:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you put a lot of time into it? (24.91.176.126)

I try to put in an hour or so when I can, takes some of the load off other editors and admins. KC9CQJ 17:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your award of the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! It's my very first, and I'm honored. Perhaps you'll make a user account, edit a few articles, and become an active part of the Wikipedia...KC9CQJ 17:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Almightylol

If I revert it anymore, I'm violating WP:3RR. Plus I need to get to bed...but thanks. Keep up the good work. I flagged it on WP:AIV btw.--Alphachimp ^talk 07:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

AlmightyLOL

Don't worry - vandalism reversions do not count towards 3RR. I'm about to have him blocked. Thanks for the heads up - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 07:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Restoring userpage content

Hi, I noticed this edit and I'm not quite sure what the point was. You weren't restoring some warnings to the users page but a request for unblock and as some people check for those requesting unblock restoring an unneeded unblock tag was cause me to check when no check was needed. The user had been caught up as collateral damage as often happens to AOL users there is no need for someone to retain that on their userpage if they don't want it. --pgk^(talk) 20:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it because the page had been blanked in the edit immediately before it. I wasn't sure if the user had been unblocked or not, and wasn't sure if that was a warning or not, so I reverted on the side of error. Sorry for the inconvenience. KC9CQJ 03:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

re: 'Hardcore Punk'

Re: your revert,

There's a character named Bob Sallese who has, for years, inserted his name in this article as the originator of the term, 'hardcore punk.' He is not.

He's a crazy person who claims among other things that he was run out of the music business by CIA assassins.

I, for one, give up.

My point to you was that there was no edit summary and nothing to that effect on the article's talk page. If you can provide primary and secondary sources to back up your claim that Sallese is indeed 'spamming' Wikipedia, then the content can be removed or added as such. But, you must use a verifiable source to do so, hence why I reverted your changes to the article. That, and it's generally bad taste to include Wikipedia in an article unless you're Jimbo Wales or something of that nature. KC9CQJ 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Cohen (internet)

Kc9cqj - The Benjamin Cohen (internet) page was made a candidate for deletion by a vandal in my opinion. A look at the edits shows a number of individuals continually changing and vandalising the page. Philsome 16:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (edited for continuity, KC9CQJ 16:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Be that as it may, the AfD tag still needs to stay on the page until community consensus weighs in on the issue. You can still edit the page, and you can still make your case, but the tag should stay there - hence the reversion. KC9CQJ 16:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OA article

I agree with you on the OA article. Could you clean up the adult and Freemasonry stuff and let me know when you finish? I get a bit worked up on the OA stuff sometimes-;) YIS, Rlevse 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice job and thanks. Please consider listing yourself as a member of the Scouting Project on the Scouting page. Rlevse 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Washington State

So, you should probly get your head out of your ass and make sure whos IP adress you're warning to "stop vandalizing the Naselle and Cathlamet" pages. Since I've never edited ANYTHING on Wikipedia, I know it wasn't me or anyone using this computer. have fun being wikipedia's watchdog. dont you have anything else to do? (unsigned from 67.138.116.118)

So, if it wasn't you, and you've never edited Wikipedia, why are you so hot on the deal? Why do you care who was warned to stop vandalizing? KC9CQJ 21:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching this: [1] --mtz206 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Cohen AfD

Hi - saw your name on this page. I think something has gone wrong - but am not sure what to do about it - hoping you may know. --HJMG 16:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I simply reverted where Philsome had removed an AfD tag and made a comment on the page that the proper AfD format needed to be followed. I have no opinion either to keep or to delete, merely that AfD tags should not be removed until consensus to keep or delete is reached. KC9CQJ 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me - sorry I didn't make myself clear - I was only looking for help with "de-orphaning" the AfD discussion and getting it listed on the main AfD page. There are so many things I don't yet understand about how Wikipedia works!--HJMG 08:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

heartfelt gratitude to you and Dakpowers

Thanks for your RVs on my talk page -- apparently I wasn't a very popular lady with the vandals today. Keep up the good fight! --Marysunshine 04:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Marysunshine 04:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)--Marysunshine 04:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted POV tag

You just reverted my removal of POV tag on the Michael O'Dwyer article. However, please note that the POV tag has been recently added by user:Leithp with this comment in edit summary "no this is still ridiculously POV", without providing any arguments in support of this. The article may not meet Wikipedia standards, but it is definitly not POV, as most of its content is sourced, including O'Dwyer's own words. (unsigned by 203.115.76.59).

Your edit did not use edit summaries, as I have stated above, that, and there are still POV statements in the article. (things like "He greatly did this"). You can remove the tag after the POV is taken out, and I still encourage you to use edit summaries. KC9CQJ 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you confusing normal written english with POV? I dont know whether Dwyer "greatly distinguised himself", but it is probably true as evident from his fast rise in the government. If we have such strict intrepretation of NPOV rules, almost all articles will get the POV tag. Anyway, this is not the point of dispute here. The POV tag has been put by supporters of O'Dwyer (or of British/western imperialism), who deny O'Dwyer's reponsibility for the massacre (or deny the massacre itself). This despite the fact that O'Dwyer himself claimed full credit for his actions. This fact is sourced in the article and discussion. You have still not explained why it is OK for a massacre-supporter to put POV tag (along with a rude comment as 'edit summary'). (unsigned again by [[User_talk:203.115.76.59|203.115.76.59).

Since it seems to be your prime activity in proving me wrong rather than editing Wikipedia (the four edits to my user page as opposed to your ONE removal of a POV tag, I'm figuring I need to tell you exactly what is POV in the article.

1. He greatly distinguished himself in land revenue settlement work
2. Michael may have tried his best to heed to the advice of the Viceroy.
3. But by nature, Michael O'Dwyer was alleged to have been a tough guy and acted like a dictator. No fact citation.
4. ...well-known manslaughter of Amritsar had occurred on April 13, 1919

...and those are the ones that I'm picking out at first glance. Please, revise the POV from the article if you so desperately want to remove the tag from it. KC9CQJ 21:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for editing your precious user-page FOUR TIMES (oops.. FIVE Now). However, thanks for showing me the futility of arguing with a stupid pizza delievery boy, when I could have used this time in helping one of my students with his doctorate thesis. Anyway, here is one piece of advice: stick to pizza delieveries and leave complex historical events to real historians (or at least people having education more than punching keyboard between pizza delieveries).

Obviously, I'm not making myself clear. You can take the tag off of the page. You need to remove the point of view from it. You need to use an edit summary. I am not going to allow the page to stand without a POV tag in its current state, nor am I going to permit you to remove the POV tag without decent documentation on the talk page or an edit summary. This is something that I have attempted to tell you on three or four different occasions. If you want to take the POV tag down, you need to revise the article to not include POV, rather than fiddle-faddle around on my userpage.

Personally, I don't care. That is to say, I didn't care, until you launched your personal attack on me in regards to a POV tag and posted the above comments on my talk page. Then you were blocked. Sorry. For your information, I am not dumb, I am not stupid, and I do not deliver pizza because I am stupid. I enjoy what I do, profoundly, because it gives me the time and leisure to edit Wikipedia without having to worry about doctoral students or other constraints on my time. If you're so worried about working with said doctoral students, what in the world are you doing here wasting an hour of your PRECIOUS DOCTORAL STUDENT assistance time by posting on MY user page since I'm such a waste of space in your opinion?

You can keep your real history for all I care. When you fail to follow Wikipedia guidelines to contribute, that's when I get irritated. I could care less what kind of education you have, either, because it obviously hasn't helped with your comprehension of English or your comprehension of Wikipedia policy.

By the way, please sign your comments on other people's user pages with ~~~~ instead of leaving your comment unsigned. It's considered in poor Wiki etiquette not to. KC9CQJ 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, I didnt realise that you would be so touchy about your profession-of-choice. I understand the profound sense of fullfillment your work gives you. You must not be ashamed about this. Being a pizza delivery boy does not directly indicate that you are stupid, so please dont keep repeating this on your userpage or being so defensive about it and threatening people for thinking otherwise. Such behavior may point to a deep seated sense of inadequacy. BTW what exactly do you mean by: "It's often a stupid maneuver to vandalize the same user's userpage as your only contributions." 203.115.76.44 21:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am touchy about what I do, especially when stuffed shirt professors like yourself take an arrogant manner in correcting "historical fact or fiction". It's not the fact that you wanted to correct the article, it's the fact that you didn't remove POV from it and were so insistant that I was wrong for removing a five-character tag from an article. It doesn't ashame me at all, but you are the one who took the high-horse attitude first, not I.

In addition, it would have been harder to show that you're a true closet case had you contributed to Wikipedia beyond removing a POV tag and vandalizing my userpage several times. As a result, I've requested that your IP addresses be temporarily blocked and further comments similar to what you've already said be further considered violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:No personal attacks, and the vandalism policy, freeing up further action from the Arbitration Committee. We're glad that you chose to contribute, but when you didn't contribute in a manner following current Wikipedia policy, that's when I personally took offense. KC9CQJ 04:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi. Don't worry about all the opposing votes, you'll make a great admin, just wait for a couple of months. --Tone 21:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Scroll

731. What's yours? -- mh143 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

John Paul is my big, and his big is Brandon Hobbes. I know things, but I'm sure there are plenty of things I don't know. BTW, I asked you scroll, but not your name! How stupid of me. My name is Matt, but my nickname is Gustav..... Do you get on aim very often? Is your s/n the same as your wikipedia name, cause if so I just tried to IM you! I could talk about Teke all day, but it'd be better if we could talk bout it in real time on aim! --Mh143 00:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a Teke Hello

• throws the handshake* Sayin' hi, I mentioned to Mh143 that I met a couple of your fraters at the 2003 conclave. Nice guys, gave me a t-shirt. Happy editing to you! Teke 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominations Committee was at Conclave, I was the elected spokesperson for the nominations at the 2003 conclave. As for the guys I met, one was short and skinny with long hair, the other was a big guy. Teke 06:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The committee, btw, is where the candidates for office pitch, and is open to questions. Alot of our fraters were, uh, ill from...things, during our sessions but it was a blast for me. I have Mark Romig's resume ;) Teke 07:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your mention of Chris Walsh on the TKE talk page. I've met him a couple times, but he will have no idea who I am. Greg Bucher was our HQNAZI _Sarcasm!, Chris was the southeast co-ordinator (if I remember correctly). Teke 07:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

blanking a page

Hi, sorry about that last edit to Long Reliever. There were two articles, one with a capital "R", and one with a lowercase "r", and wanted to fix it so there was just one (w/ lowercase "r"). What I really wanted to do was delete the page with the capital "R", since it was redundant, but obviously it didn't work.

Is it better to have the redirect from Long Reliever to Long reliever rather than just deleting the one with the capital "R"? Does this mean I get to be on your page of Vandalism Mistakes?  :) PKirlin 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okeydokey, thanks for your assistance. I applaud your counter-vandalism efforts. PKirlin 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And hey, being on your mistakes page, as only one of three mistakes, makes me practically famous! PKirlin 00:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Armking

(Snip from AIV):

• Perhaps you could explain to him first why this is detrimental? Assume good faith, and please do not issue a final warning as a first means of communication. Errabee 23:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked the contribs before I went to AIV. His only contributions were circular redirects. Let me ask you this, if someone posts twelve to fourteen *different* instances where a page redirects to another as their *only conributions*, is that vandalism or not? KC9CQJ 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that his behaviour was not contributing to the encyclopedia. But a little communication could do wonders in some cases. You don't know the reason why he acted the way he did, and you made no attempt to find out. It indeed looks like vandalism, but only a mild form of it. He now is blocked indefinitely for 12 to 14 incorrect redirects, which seems a bit overdone to me. Errabee 23:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And then promptly created a sockpuppet named Armking2, evaded the block, and started doing the same thing all over again. The redirected articles had absolutely nothing to do with one another at all and were creating circular references all over the place. One redirect, maybe....but twenty over two different user accounts? I call that disruption, not a general error. KC9CQJ 00:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and he created a second sockpuppet named Armhead as well. Just because you're proven right in this case, does not mean that WP:AGF should be disregarded; maybe a beginning vandal could be persuaded to do some constructive editing instead. Errabee 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, but to me, WP:AGF does not apply when the supposed new user himself is in violation of WP:POINT or being a general disruption and is doing things that most new users don't do, like create circular redirects and spawn sockpuppets every three minutes. (he's up to nine right now) That's what this one has been doing, that's why he was reported to AIV in the manner he was rather than more constructive or progressive warnings. Sorry for the confusion. KC9CQJ 01:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. We're all working towards the same goal in our own way. Errabee 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Kai Wong

CQJ,

I'm a fairly new member of WP, and one of my first edits was the successful move to delete the article "Kai Wong." From the article, which came across as a gossipy personals page, I gathered that Wong was an obscure pseudo-celebrity trying to build an internet fan base. Whatever can be made of that, it was obvious that he didn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Why did you recreate his page? I'm not the sort of person to throw the rule-book at anyone, but an article can only be recreated after deletion if it has changed substantially. If not, then it's up for speedy deletion (for which I've nominated it). Blintz 04:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

When I saw/worked on the article (which was Kai wong, it had an N flag on it, indicating it was brand new. I greeted the user, moved it from Kai wong where it was to Kai Wong where it should have been had it been a legitimate article, and went on my merry way. I have no other involvement with the article, nor do I understand where you drew your conclusion that I'd recreated it since I didn't see a protection or an AFD notice when I created the new page. In addition, please check user contributions before you chastise another user in the future - you'll find that I've been through the AFD/CSD process before and am more than versed in what it entails and requires. CQJ 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh..now I see why you were so upset in the first place. The page wasn't protected, and I don't verify every little change I do against AFD to make sure that it's not a recreation. However, instead of you blasting me like I'm an idiot, you could have just said..."Hey, it's a recreation, just to let you know...." CQJ 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CQJ, I'm most sorry. Yes, I now see that you only helped format the page, so I apologize if I was abraisive. The reason for my suspicion was that when I initially listed that absurd Kai Wong page for deletion, I had to fight a pitched battle against an assortment of fanatical Chinese partisans and meddling admins. That took quite some effort, so I was annoyed to find that the page had been defiantly recreated. Again, my apologies; I'll redirect my attention to the user who recreated the page. Blintz 00:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, CQJ! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe's talk 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Complaints archive/Archive 1

Your recent edit to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Complaints archive/Archive 1 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh. It works! CQJ 17:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Steam

CQJ,

Were I you, I would not waste my time with the Steam (band) article. I tried to return to it today to make yet more revisions to please the obvious one-subject (and probable sockpuppet) editor, user:Fortheloveofhampsters, and he had the page PROTECTED by saying that I reverted the article three times! The policy calls for more than three times in 24 hours. How can that happen???

Checking all related links, user contrib., and history pages of this article and the Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) article that the hamster talked to you about in his request for mediation, I discovered that every time he has a problem with another editor he starts screaming "sockpuppet!!!! sockpuppet!!!!" and user:Ideogram and company comes to his "rescue". What are they, the Wikipedia version of Henny Penny and Chicken Little or something?

Surprise! Fortheloveofhampsters only created his user account about two weeks ago in the midst another edit war with the Bravo/Scott article, and with the aid of Ideogram he was able to get it deleted! Perhaps that is as it should be, perhaps not, but it was also surprising to discover how Ideogram has a traceable association with several of the editors of these two articles in the mediation cabal and on other unrelated articles and projects. They appear to be a type of syndicate, and I thought this was a legitimate site! Perhaps Ideogram is really Fortheloveofhampsters and/or others including the administrator or two who blocked users and protected pages for his user account and the hampster [sic] user account.

As for the Steam (band) article content, like you, I thought the user:RomeoVoid version [[2]] was pretty good myself. And like my version which was actually a modified version of an older one, it was backed up by a Billboard book, online links to liner notes for the album that can be instantly checked, et. al. Romeovoid only reverted his own version after the hamster threatened to go to an administrator in a long, bizarre, and twisted rant which was edited out because of personal attacks, and after being accused of cyber stalking WP:Stalk. Part of the charm of Romeovoid's version is that it underscored the fact that Steam was a fictitious band, and the added facts gave that mystique a boost. However, the hamster oddly wants to stick his one issue of a single recording of the na na song (one of many that hit the charts by other famous groups/artists), and he ignores the fact that Steam recorded a host of other songs that definitely did not include who his idea of who the lead singer was. Some sources say that Gary DeCarlo was on the Steam na na record so I added it to my version of the article to appease hamster. Considering this, perhaps the hamster is not a sockpuppet after all, and he either has it out for the Bravo musician or he may have been associated with the studio ensemble or failed touring band in some way. In any case this is not neutral. There are many conflicting versions and opinions of the story out there -- some credible, some not -- that can convolute the story even more. I say that most could care less, and would like to see the article remain a pleasant, interesting, and fun thing to muse upon, rather than a dry -- now bitter-- clinical evaluation. The song itself is fun in any version, and I have sung the na na chant (only words I know) myself at many -- and I mean MANY -- ball games! I thought the article should reflect that same spirit.

No sense in me going on further here because there is no way to win unless you can be Machiavellian, and are also very good in weaseling your way around Wikipedia in order to avoid the written policies and manipulate the site and its "facts". That makes this site a type of virtual sandbox. Unless you are in with or one of the bullies in it, you are OUT of the box and can't play with them! This article or site just isn't worth that kind of time to me, and I am now really turned off. As far as I am concerned, these types are a true disgrace in any arena, and can only discredit the Wikipedia experiment even more! Na na – goodbye to Wikipedia! STLOUCS --71.247.117.209 23:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

☼☼☼Rise to Your Podium All Mighty ManWhore☼☼☼

You now totally have Republican soap. This soap is mildly gritty, but otherwise exceptional.

The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Westminster Archdiocese

I have added my reply to the comments by yourself and Kevin. Roydosan 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

TEST message

test message

Wot Bot?

I noticed the changes to the Desk over at medcab and was curious what, exactly, your bot is supposed to do? I'm afraid I haven't quite grasped its purpose yet? I've looked at the diffs, but...I give. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

MedCab: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT

IN THE MEDIATION CABAL; Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT

After review of the case notes, the messages, the page itself, and the comments from Nescio quoted below, we have decided that the best course of action is to refer this matter to administrators for review.

To be clear this is not about the part of WOT debate, this is about the current team up to prohibit restoration of the original comments on the "poll," and the refusal to let me comment on that...Either restore all deleted comments to that page, or grant me the right to remove my remaining comments. Further I would like Zero to stop stalking me.

User conduct disputes, specifically ones that require or seek enforcement action, are not within our perview. We cannot make a blanket decision to revert deleted comments at the page in question, nor can we "grant the right to remove" anything from an article or talk page or generally enforce any action taken against undesirable user behavior as we are an informal group of mediators acting for the benefit of the encyclopedia.

The case is remanded to administrators for review. CQJ 06:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake has offered to assist in the matter further if necessary. Please contact him directly should you require his assistance. CQJ 06:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

/s/

CQJ 06:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC);

Clerk of the Mediation Cabal

Mediation with F-14

Thanks for looking into it, I'd greatly appreciate your help. Where/when should I make my statement regarding the content dispute as it currently stands (I.e. what sources there are, how to guage them, and what I feel is supported by the sources)? I've been refraining from another comment war as you can witness on the F-14 talk page. --Mmx1 15:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. The main problem is Wiarthurhu or Matador300, whatever you want to call him, believes that the F-14 Tomcat was designed to be agile and to be an air superiority fighter. Mmx1 does not.

Sheesh. Me, and the F-14 engineering manager, and 1969 Flight Magazine and the VFAX spec and Janes Defence books and Modern Marvels and the F-14 test pilot and the US Navy and... you get the idea.--matador300 06:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu cites several sources, mostly magazines, history channel, and apparently blogs and usenet, then cited WP:RS as saying he's allowed to. He also cites the RAND report, which Mmx1 claims is contradictory to Wiarthurhu's claims, while Wiarthurhu says that what Mmx1 cites from RAND are contradictory to his claims. The offending passage is, "As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions." I mentioned this to Wiarthurhu, and he said that this didn't mean it wasn't designed for maneuverability, just that it meant the Phoenix would be kept. Wiarthurhu also claims that the reason the F-111B was canceled was that it was unmaneuverable and couldn't win a dogfight. Mmx1 says that it was because it was unable to land on a carrier. Wiarthurhu has also made repeated attacks against Mmx1 for not having any "credentials" and repeatedly cites his minor in aeronautical engineering as reason for him being a better source than Mmx1. Another part of the problem is Wiarthurhu went to the Air superiority aticle and said that the F-14 was designed for air superiority, and Mmx1 disagrees, and another edit war began.

Much of Wiarthurhu's information is also anecdotal, and/or uncited, or comes from a source that has a reputation for being unreliable, (history channel, magazines, both of which I've seen mistakes in), now I'm not sure what sources Mmx1 uses but I will quote from Boyd by Robert Coram, "...the F-14 Tomcat is a lumbering, poor-performing, aerial truck. It weighs about fifty-four thousand pounds. Add on external fuel tanks and missiles and the weight is about seventy thousand pounds. It is what fighter pilots call a "grape": squeeze it in a couple of hard turns and all the energy oozes out. That energy cannot be quickly regained, and the aircraft becomes an easy target." This information came from people who saw E-M diagrams (Energy-Maneuverability theory) created by Boyd, who had access to more detailed information on the F-14 than the average person. --LWF 23:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The following comment was inserted, unsigned by User:Wiarthurhu. CQJ 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on Lwf. Many reasonable disagree as to whether the F-14 is or is not the BEST dogfighter. But surely if Grumman, the Navy, and the F-14 manager of engineering, and the Wikipedia before March 2006 all agree that the F-14 was designed to be a dogfighter and air superiority fighter, that is more citable sources than Mmx1, who has no sources unless he indirectly constructs it "if fas does not mention dogfighting, therefore it must have not been designed to dogfight". See below, the two 1969 Flight magazines prove beyond a doubt that the F-14 was designed to be a dogfighter, and that so was the VFAX and VFX specifications the F-14 was designed to meet. Mmx1 simply dismisses all citations which unfortunately there appears to be no rules against. If the Flight articles are true, then Mmx1 is wrong. It should not be this difficult for two people to agree on the meaning of a source as clear as this, and who went to more work (going to the library and getting a freaking original magazine for pete's sake) vs stumbling across a free website). --06:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The below comment was cross-copied from Wiarthurhu's userspace in reference to the F-14 dispute. No content has been modified. CQJ 01:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. If you can convince Mmx1 that two 1969 Flight International articles that name the F-14 as "the VFX air superiority fighter" and explain that the F-14 was designed to be agile, we're done. My primary problem is that he believes he can and does instantly revert (well, within 10 min) any edit, even if cited from Janes Defence ($1,400 annual subscription) that he believes is unreliable, which just about anything. He has zero direct citations, he constructs understanding on the basis of indirect facts, and has zero respect for credentials or experience of any kind, he believes that his judmement is infallible. I have actually found at least 3 other persons who have similar positions on the topic, but it can be shown to be factually false by the existence of these 1969 articles. --matador300 17:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

CQJ asked me to come in and give my two cents on what's going on here.

As I see this, the fundamental question is one of absolute or relative interpretation of some comments by Grumman staff related to the F-14's design, as to what degree it was designed to be a dogfight capable (highly agile / maneuverable) fighter.

Everyone agrees and understands that the F-14 was designed with a primary mission requirement being to carry 4 to 6 AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. Each of those missiles weighs over 1,000 pounds, is 13 inches in diameter (body) and 3 feet across the fins, and 13 feet long. Compared to other air to air missiles, the Phoenix is both extremely heavy and extremely large; the then-current Sparrow radar guided missile is 8 inches diameter, 12 feet long, and 500 or so pounds by comparison.

Fitting four AIM-54 underneath the F-14's fuselage and two more under the wing roots quite definitely had an effect on the aircraft design. The F-14 had to be physically big enough that all of those could simply fit, which made it about 50% heavier than the contemporary F-15 fighter that the Air Force developed. Another factor increasing its size was the diameter of the AN/AWG-9 radar, which at 36 inches in diameter is almost as wide as the jet engines that propel the F-14. All of these requirements together made the F-14 extremely large and heavy compared to other western heavy fighters of the same time period.

There is no question that Grumman took those requirements and then built the most agile and maneuverable fighter they could within the design constraints that the missiles and radar imposed. The question is, did the F-14 design which resulted have high agility compared to other contemporary aircraft, or medium agility.

In my opinion, based on sources including operational F-14 pilots, test pilots who have flown F-14s as well as other fighters, instructors from the Navy "Top Gun" Fighter Weapons Program, histories of the F-14 program, flight manuals, and my understanding of aircraft design and engineering, that the F-14 is significantly less agile than lightweight purpose built "dogfighter" aircraft, noticably less agile than lightweight multirole aircraft, and less agile than contemporary Air Superiority fighters such as the F-15.

In my opinion, claims that the F-14 is an agile fighter compared to its contemporaries are incorrect. It is a fighter which it is possible to fight and win dogfights in, given excellent pilot training (and I have no doubt that the US Navy does so with its pilots), but the aircraft is fundamentally not great at dogfighting. Ok, but not great. To be great, it would have had to shed the Phoenix missile carrying mission and shrunk a whole lot.

I believe that Matador keeps taking Grumman and other "marketing materials" out of context and attempting to argue that the F-14 is in fact one of the most agile fighters ever, which I believe to be unsubstantiated by any informed reading of the whole set of source materials available including basic engineering analysis of the various aircraft involved.

That's my basic position on the matter. Georgewilliamherbert 20:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't just stumble across that quote from a free website, I had to search for it in a book I had read before. Besides, you can't just assume everything in a magazine is fact, but since you may need examples, Popular Mechanics, September 1999, "At age 33, "Kelly" Johnson had already established his reputation. His newest design, the twin-tailed, 400-mph P-38 Lightning, was the most maneuverable fighter-and arguably the most beautiful airplane-in the Allied force." The P-38, though, was not the most maneuverable allied airplane, that honor belongs to the Spitfire or Mustang. But it says it in a magazine, so does that mean it should be included in Wikipedia? Especially if they are touting a highly inaccurate artist's concept as the final design? Besides all of those sources you give (Grumman VP, test pilot etc. etc.) have a key interest in the matter, they are all trying to promote it for sales, or are biased in favor of it. For example, Chuck Yeager has stated in public that he believes the F-20 was better than the F-16, but this statement must be taken with a grain of salt, because he was the test pilot for the program and had a vested interest in the F-20. So statements from Grumman are not the most reliable in this case. LWF 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1's Further Replies

I have some further comments I'd like to make here regarding sources, since the intent of the MedCabal page seems to be for a summary of positions, not debating sources. Here are also answers to some of your questions on the page.

• George Spangenberg You asked who he is (I misspelled his name). You can find his bio here. He was Director, Evaluation Division of the Naval Air Systems Command, from 1957 - 1975. His statements amount to merely that the F-14 was a "better fighter" than the F-4, and that the VFX was "In essence, this finally evolved as upgrading the VFAX to carry the AWG-9 fire control system and the Phoenix missiles."
• VFAX I said this on the Medcabal page but that may not have been the right place. The VFAX was a concept for a lightweight strike fighter complement to the F-111B, it died when the F-111 went under, Spangenberg says the interception mission was essentially added to it to form the VFX program. However, it is evident that the "lightweight" and strike were both dropped from the VFX specification. Against his opposition the VFAX program was revived as the F/A-18. The VFAX is not another name for the F-14, the VFX is. The VFX is the program that directly resulted in the F-14, the VFAX is both a predecessor and a later complement.
• The quote from Boyd ("...the F-14 Tomcat is a lumbering, poor-performing, aerial truck. It weighs about fifty-four thousand pounds. Add on external fuel tanks and missiles and the weight is about seventy thousand pounds. It is what fighter pilots call a "grape": squeeze it in a couple of hard turns and all the energy oozes out. That energy cannot be quickly regained, and the aircraft becomes an easy target.) You'd asked if any source information from a neutral party could describe the maneuverability or capabilities of the F-14. Boyd was the leader of the fighter mafia that advocated lighter, more maneuverable fighters. --Mmx1 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Janes The 2000-2001 edition and the online Jane's All the World's Aircraft do not include the F-14 as it is out of production. I have requested the 1970,80, and 90 editions from library storage but it will take a few days for the request to be processed.
• In the 1950's and 60's the Air Force was largely run by Strategic Air Command and flag/general officers(Generals and Admirals) in the mold of Curtis Lemay, who felt that close-in fighting was a distraction from the real mission of strategic bombing. In accordance with that vision, they wanted to destroy enemy aircraft as "hands-off" as possible, i.e. with missiles. Boyd and his "fighter mafia" were largely WWII era fighter pilots who were rising into field grade ranks (the middle 1/3d of ranks) and were pushing an alternate view based on their combat experience.
• Did the view on air superiority change? Definitely. This was a period of great upheaval, what happened was that for whatever reason (being the first, or the perceived importance of the fleet defense mission - carriers don't fear light fighters, they fear long-range bombers) it missed the boat on the doctrinal change. The early signs are present, and it is an improvement in maneuverability over both its predecessors and contemporary fighters, but it was not designed for maneuverability the way the F-15/16/18 were. The F-14 found it self employed in greater frequency in the escort role against smaller fighters, and Top Gun was instituted to rectify training deficiencies in close-in fighting in order to adapt to changing doctrine.--Mmx1 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to your revisions,

• Well, I'm not clear if the body of the second compromise is supposed to be the body of your last comment there. It may help to delineate it separately from the commenting on the process, perhaps with italics. Also, I do think your refactoring should at least put quotes in italics, otherwise the grammar is a bit screwy and it's difficult to discern the meaning(e.g. in my refactored response to the 2nd compromise). Your comments look okay, though given the trouble we've been having with undue assumptions I think we should stick with precise terms other long-range Navy interceptors of the late 60's and early 70's rather than the imprecise other aircraft of its time.
• Secondly, I don't think "secondary design aim" and matador's view that it "was a consideration in the process" are exclusive. He does believe it's a primary design aim, which is a problem as it's unsupported by sources nor editors. I understand it'd be hard for him to accept the "secondary" wording, but I don't believe accuacy should be subject to the dogged persistence of one editor (and as a "watchdog" on the 9-11 pages I am well acquainted with dogged persistence). Leaving the language deliberately vague is a disservice and an invitation to introduce undue assumptions. I do believe consensus is with me on this point. Can I suggest that the language say that Grumman advertised the Tomcat as ...whatever the ads say, uncompromising, yada yada.... but the Navy specifications and doctrine called for fleet defense via interception as a primary consideration and maneuverability as a secondary consideration.
• Just a note on the pop culture, I do blame Top Gun for this meme that the F-14 was an "unsurpassed" or "uncompromising" dogfighter and I don't think analogies to it are particularly helpful. As I noted on the talk page, there's been a lot of nostalgic reminiscing about the F-14 in the months leading to its retirement, mostly through rose-colored glasses. I've been privy to many a internet shouting match about the F-14 vs the Super hornet, and it's funny how the guys with bars on their shoulders end up defending the Super Hornet against fans armed with books on their shelves. --Mmx1 17:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Scratch Space

Gone wrong Temp workspace for Firecrafter A test template some RFC work I did more RFC work I did Scout scratch space VandalWatch