Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:43, 28 July 2012

Welcome

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

DBigXray 08:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

S-70 vs. S-76

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for edit warring

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at the dispute resolution noticeboard is about as bad as it gets. When this block expires, you really should move on and work on a different topic (please see WP:STICK). If you continue edit warring and disruptive editing in relation to the S-76 helicopter you will be blocked for an indefinite period. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

How do punitive administrative gag orders on one side of an argument "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" or "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms."? What it does is encourage editors like Guy Macon to game the system using block requests as blunt cudgels in petty fights that now rest on their argument that there can be no mention of similarity between two transmissions because they may share the same design they believe they could have two different part numbers, even though they can't even reference that statement.

Rather than "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Guy Macon now has you issuing gag orders to prevent any dispute resolution process from occurring, destroying the possibility of productive or congenial editing. Throughout the whole fight Guy Macon and editors fighting on his side have consistently used tactics such as threats and bullying in an effort to forward their biased interpretation insead of debating the merits of the different versions of the article.

Notes:

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

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

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Could you elaborate a little on your scolding of me for trying to restore the S-76 discussion to the dispute resolution page that Guy Macon unilaterally closed and deleted? Coincidentally, I was about to report Guy Macon for edit warring on that very page. How exactly do you propose there be any rational discussion of the dispute if Guy Macon unilaterally closes the discussion on the dispute page while it was still new and before it had made it to the top of the list of new disputes to discuss? Also I refer you to wikipedia policy Administrator guidance on edit warring. "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues." You seem to be discounting any culpability by Guy Macon. Could you explain how he can be guiltless? How do punitive administrative gag orders on one side of an argument "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" or "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms."? What it does is encourage editors like Guy Macon to game the system using block requests as blunt cudgels in petty fights that now rest on their argument that there can be no mention of similarity between two transmissions because they may share the same design they believe they could have two different part numbers, even though they can't even reference that statement. Rather than "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Guy Macon now has you issuing gag orders to prevent any dispute resolution process from occurring, destroying the possibility of productive or congenial editing. Throughout the whole fight Guy Macon and editors fighting on his side have consistently used tactics such as threats and bullying in an effort to forward their biased interpretation insead of debating the merits of the different versions of the article. Guy Macon is using this gag order just like he used the undo button on the dispute resolution noticeboard to quash the dispute resolution process. "But Brutus is an honorable man."] (]) 08:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=Could you elaborate a little on your scolding of me for trying to restore the S-76 discussion to the dispute resolution page that Guy Macon unilaterally closed and deleted? Coincidentally, I was about to report Guy Macon for edit warring on that very page. How exactly do you propose there be any rational discussion of the dispute if Guy Macon unilaterally closes the discussion on the dispute page while it was still new and before it had made it to the top of the list of new disputes to discuss? Also I refer you to wikipedia policy Administrator guidance on edit warring. "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues." You seem to be discounting any culpability by Guy Macon. Could you explain how he can be guiltless? How do punitive administrative gag orders on one side of an argument "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" or "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms."? What it does is encourage editors like Guy Macon to game the system using block requests as blunt cudgels in petty fights that now rest on their argument that there can be no mention of similarity between two transmissions because they may share the same design they believe they could have two different part numbers, even though they can't even reference that statement. Rather than "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Guy Macon now has you issuing gag orders to prevent any dispute resolution process from occurring, destroying the possibility of productive or congenial editing. Throughout the whole fight Guy Macon and editors fighting on his side have consistently used tactics such as threats and bullying in an effort to forward their biased interpretation insead of debating the merits of the different versions of the article. Guy Macon is using this gag order just like he used the undo button on the dispute resolution noticeboard to quash the dispute resolution process. "But Brutus is an honorable man."] (]) 08:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=Could you elaborate a little on your scolding of me for trying to restore the S-76 discussion to the dispute resolution page that Guy Macon unilaterally closed and deleted? Coincidentally, I was about to report Guy Macon for edit warring on that very page. How exactly do you propose there be any rational discussion of the dispute if Guy Macon unilaterally closes the discussion on the dispute page while it was still new and before it had made it to the top of the list of new disputes to discuss? Also I refer you to wikipedia policy Administrator guidance on edit warring. "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues." You seem to be discounting any culpability by Guy Macon. Could you explain how he can be guiltless? How do punitive administrative gag orders on one side of an argument "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" or "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms."? What it does is encourage editors like Guy Macon to game the system using block requests as blunt cudgels in petty fights that now rest on their argument that there can be no mention of similarity between two transmissions because they may share the same design they believe they could have two different part numbers, even though they can't even reference that statement. Rather than "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Guy Macon now has you issuing gag orders to prevent any dispute resolution process from occurring, destroying the possibility of productive or congenial editing. Throughout the whole fight Guy Macon and editors fighting on his side have consistently used tactics such as threats and bullying in an effort to forward their biased interpretation insead of debating the merits of the different versions of the article. Guy Macon is using this gag order just like he used the undo button on the dispute resolution noticeboard to quash the dispute resolution process. "But Brutus is an honorable man."] (]) 08:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

No-one asked that I block you Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

How does it "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" or "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms."? And how does it recognize, as policy Administrator guidance dictates, that there isn't just one side? That it's harmful to treat edit wars as one sided actions? And how does it further the process of dispute resolution?

How does the block in any way better the community, by putting a gag order on the dispute resolution process? Isn't that the very disruption blocks are meant to prevent, not cause?TeeTylerToe (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRN is not a forum for your WP:SOAPBOXING. Two dispute resolution volunteers have independently determined that the case at WP:DRN should be closed on the basis of you having no case, the consensus being against you, and you being a disruptive editor. That's what we do. We close cases when it becomes clear that the problem is one disruptive editor rather than the problem being a content dispute. After your block expires, you are free to try to make your case for DRN volunteer misbehavior at the DRN talk page, but be aware that your recent conduct pretty much confirms our determination that the the problem is one disruptive editor -- you. The consensus is clearly against you. You aren't going to get your way, because you are wrong about those helicopters. Learn to deal with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Who are those two volunteers, and where did they make your argument for you? I remember seeing Dave, who has participated in the warring like you Guy Macon, argued that the material that we have since found consensus on was synthesis because there were two references. There were two references because editors warring with you argued that one reference they disagree with doesn't really "count" against the "TRUTH". This was disproved, and there is now consensus on that material. Steven Zhang made the same incorrect argument. While he did not argue your position the way you portray, he did seem to take the position that if dispute resolution does take place on wikipedia, it probably shouldn't be on the wikipedia dispute resolution noticeboard. Could you provide any shred of support to your contention that two neutral parties are arguing your own argument for you?TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not interested in arguing with you. You are blocked. Appeal the block if you think it is improper (Try reading our guide to appealing blocks this time). After your block expires, report me and Steven Zhang if you believe that you have evidence of either of us misbehaving. I am not going to waste any more time on you.

BTW, while I do not believe that the above rises to the level of a WP:NPA violation, it is getting close. Be advised that if you do cross that line you will be blocked from editing your own talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock