User talk:TeeTylerToe: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:15, 19 July 2016 editUTRSBot (talk \| contribs)Bots15,600 edits This appeal is now closed (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:07, 20 July 2016 edit undoHuon (talk \| contribs)Administrators51,328 edits unblock request acceptedNext edit →
Line 627:		Line 627:
	{{ping\|TeeTylerToe}} I know you can't reply here now, but I hope you don't mind a few words from me. I think the removal of your talk page privilege for the duration of the block is very much in your interest, as there was a very strong likelihood that you were otherwise heading for an indefinite block. I'd urge you to drop your appeals right now, take a little time off and sit back and think about what's happened here. And then start afresh when you come back and try your best to avoid getting into these disruptive disputes. ] (]) 15:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)		{{ping\|TeeTylerToe}} I know you can't reply here now, but I hope you don't mind a few words from me. I think the removal of your talk page privilege for the duration of the block is very much in your interest, as there was a very strong likelihood that you were otherwise heading for an indefinite block. I'd urge you to drop your appeals right now, take a little time off and sit back and think about what's happened here. And then start afresh when you come back and try your best to avoid getting into these disruptive disputes. ] (]) 15:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
	{{UTRS-unblock-user\|16177\|Jul 19, 2016 14:44:24\|closed}}--] (]) 14:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)		{{UTRS-unblock-user\|16177\|Jul 19, 2016 14:44:24\|closed}}--] (]) 14:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

			:Following a discussion with TeeTylerToe on the #wikipedia-en-unblock I will unblock him per ], with a topic ban for the ] article and definitions of "assault rifle", including talk page discussions, for two weeks from now (by then the block would have run out anyway). I also ''strongly'' encourage TeeTylerToe to ], accept that there is no consensus for his proposed changes to that article, and find another topic entirely. If the issues that led to this block recur, and I'm more concerned about the forum shopping and accusations of bad faith than about the edit warring itself, the next block is likely to be indefinite. ] (]) 19:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:07, 20 July 2016

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)

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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

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."TeeTylerToe (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Upon reviewing the history of the article in question, I don't see any signs of Guy Macon edit-warring against you. I'd rather characterize it as you vs. everyone else, which demonstrates once more that consensus is against you. You should understand one thing: edit-warring is never a way to "win" a dispute, but a rather short way to "lose" it. Max Semenik (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Request reason:

Max Semenick's first argument is contrary to the definition of edit warring. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.". I have the revert logs to prove that they collectively engaged in edit warring. Plus if any more evidence was needed, it's this very case. Guy Macon unilaterally closed the discussion on the DRN, and then edit warred to keep deleting it from the page.

The wikipedia policy on consensus is not that it is subject to a popularity pole. It is that when there are contradictory valid arguments made that the article should be widened to include them.

The way to "win" a dispute, is to game the system to block whoever tries to bring a third party to officiate the dispute. It's to be disruptive, preventing open discussion by using a cabal of editors to quash any discussion.

Let me remind you that the reason I reverted Guy Macon's edit was that first he unilaterally closed the discussion while it was still new and before it made it to the top of the new queue, and because after I restored the discussion, Guy Macon repeatedly deleted the whole section again.

Again I ask how is this dispute supposed to be resolved? And it's become such a simple dispute. They are for the wording "technology concepts", which, imo is a weasel worded way of making it seem that the S-76 is more different than it is, and it's unsupported by the reference. According to the reference, the S-70 and the S-76 share those features, not those "technology concepts". A specific airfoil design is not a "technology concept", it's a specific design.TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Entire request reason ignored; you're blocked for edit warring, and you unambiguously were edit warring. And what a foolish place to do it, too. --jpgordon 04:31, 29 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:

One serious flaw of wikipedia is dispute resolution. It's easy for two sides to each take absolutist opinions. Someone edit wars when they resort to edit competitions, and not discussion. The discussion between the two sides had become absolutist. On the 21st I submitted the dispute to the DRN, On the 28th, while the discussion was still new and before it made the top of the queue on DRN Guy Macon, edit warring without discussion, torpedoed this chance to bring the discussion to neutral parties. By that point the only fruit it had born was that fellow edit warrior Dave brought up the incorrect argument that because it had two references that it might be synthesis.

Guy Macon senselessly edit warred to scuttle the input into the discussion of neutral third parties that is Misplaced Pages's only mechanism to resolve disputes.

Once again let me remind Admins the wikipedia policy Admin guidance on edit warring "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues."

Also, let me remind you about the blocking policy. Blocks are used to prevent disruption. For instance disruption of the dispute resolution process on DRN. For instance when Guy Macon unilaterally edit wars to delete a pending discussion from the DRN.

Blocks are to prevent disruptive editing. If you'll notice in the edit war that's been going on for over a week, at no point has any Admin's action prevented me from continuing an edit war in progress. It has only ever served as something for the other side to crow over, and if there's an olympic medal for crowing, they've won the mens and women's division. It was Guy Macon's actions that triggered this, and the only edit I was going to make was to report Guy Macon's actions on the DRN for edit warring.

Now that you've gagged me for a week... what now? There ARE back channel negotiations on this very page. It looks like the other side is now discussing replacing "technology concepts" with "design technologies". Neither supported by references, and both unencyclopedic weasel words.

So in a week what will happen? Will I have to resubmit the discussion on DRN that Guy Macon edit warred to delete? You are the guru Admins. How does the wikipedia dispute resolution process work? Is article content decided by meatpacking counter to wiki policy? When disputes bring two valid arguments is there a cagematch like the one that's going on now to determine which is used in the article against wiki policy or is the article widened to accept both views? Will wikipedia Admins allow this dispute to be discussed on DRN or will they allow editors like Guy Macon to edit war to remove any discussion of the dispute on DRN?

What happens in a week? How is this resolved?

Why could this not be discussed on DRN?

Teach me! How was Guy Macon's suppression of the discussion on DRN fighting for dispute resolution through discussion? And how was my fighting for discussion not furthering wikipedia's policy of dispute resolution through discussion. And, reiterating what I've already said, When I was blocked I had stopped warring on DRN and was writing to report Guy Macon for edit warring.

Encourage me to be more productive editors. How can I dispute productively when Guy Macon edit wars against the discussion itself?

Guy Macon isn't even neutral to discussion which would ding him for edit warring he actively attacks discussion on DRN.TeeTylerToe (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

NOTTHEM. And I have to agree with the admins above me that you picked a terrible place to edit war. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

User:TeeTylerToe: You keep asking why no one else is getting blocked for edit warring but you. Edit warring is specifically reverting text on the same page more three times in 24 hrs and if you check the pages in question you will see that the only person who crossed that line was you. The rest of us are careful not to edit war because it is counter-productive and doesn't help build the encyclopedia. I think even you can now see that as a tactic to get your own way, it doesn't work. Since you are now blocked for a week you will have that time to think about what you want to do when you come back. It is pretty straightforward as explained above by the admin who blocked you, User:Nick-D. If you start participating civilly then you can resume editing, but if you get back to edit warring to try to push your own point of view against consensus and against the refs you keep providing then your days editing Misplaced Pages will be at an end. Frankly, just as some people are just not cut out for some vocations, or even hobbies, perhaps it is time to find yourself a new hobby, perhaps you can start a blog where you can freely expound your own ideas on helicopter design. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It got you what you wanted. And you as a group edit warred. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Guy macon torpedoed the discussion in the dispute resolution noticeboard.TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, a group of editors making similar edits is not an edit war, it is called a consensus. As noted the discussion at dispute resolution was over, as there was a clear consensus there. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

They weren't "similar edits". They were blind reverts. The very definition of edit warring.TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe didn't break the three revert rule. The block was imposed for sustained and increasingly serious edit warring (please note that this relevant policy states that "Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions", which was the grounds for this block). Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification there, I thought he had: , , , . But, regardless, I think the rest of my note above is still valid that User:TeeTylerToe really needs to give some careful thought as to what he wants to do on his return. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If I want to win it's clear that I need to edit war then game the system to use Admins to muzzle my opponents. Of course I'd have to break wikipedia rules and meatpack the vote bringing several like minded editors to try to muscle the result, and everyone would have to ignore that article content isn't decided by a vote.TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're right. Nevertheless, the block (and especially its one week duration) is for sustained edit warring rather than just this particular instance. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TeeTylerToe: Okay I note that you don't get it. Well no problem, see you in a week, then. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You're as condescending as Guy Macon. But watch out. BilCat's gone rogue and is actually DISCUSSING your unreferenced weasel wording. Better sic some admins on him!TeeTylerToe (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that I'm discussing it, not changing the article to fit my view against consensus, and adding in OR as I do it. And if the consesnus is against me, I'll abide by that, not continue to revert war to enforce my opinions. - BilCat (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

And how did what happened when Guy Macon unilaterally closed the DRN discussion of the S-76 while it was still new before it hit the top of the new queue, and then edit war to keep it deleted from the page show that it was that me not trying to discuss it, and instead demonstrate that I edit disruptively, like, for instance edit warring on DRN instead of trying to discuss it, for instance in a DRN discussion that Guy Macon edit warred to delete? How was that me editing the article to fit my view against the consensus? You might have notice I've been discussing it in several places, and no. I didn't make up facts about the S-76, and when I offered to show you the references about the specifics I listed about the S-76 transmission I wasn't going to refer you to this guy my friend met on the street asking for change. I was going to show you references. Not that anything to that point seemed to matter to you, in that you made it very clear in more than one place that I could make no argument to change your perspective.TeeTylerToe (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you have references, show them. Here. I'll look at them. If you don't show them, I can't look at them, and there is nothing else to discuss. I'll continue to try to tighten the current wording on the S-76 page to fit the references we currently have, but that's all I can do without more information from reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"The UH-60 main transmission has five separate, interchangeable modules (fig. 4). They are the main module, two engine input modules and two accessory modules." http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA149180 I don't remember if I used sikorskyarchives or some other reference for the statement that prior sikorsky designs used two planetary stages. The rest is on the sikorsky archives page but I've used other references to confirm the information on the sikorsky archives page when references conflicted with the cabal's "truth".

As to your problem of how to present the information, I'll waste my time and suggest something nobody will accept. Present the truth. Sikorsky designed the S-76 as a civilian S-70. They took off the armor and downsized it. It was publicly announced just 4 months after the first test flight of the S-70. They downsized the helicopter for civilian applications and had a new engine designed for it. The transmission is a downsized version of the S-70 transmission. The rotors are too.TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

*But the result was still a different aircraft. That's where this "civil S-70" stuff is throwing everyone off. No reference I've seen actually calls the S-76 a "civil S-70", becasue it isn't. "Downsized" still results in something different, even if it's of the same design. The current wording of the text does convey that idea, though it needs to be clarified a bit. However, the sources that are being discussed on the S-76 talk page now seem to show that the S-76 transmission is of a different design than that of the S-70. So something is still getting mixed up here, as both claims can't be right. - BilCat (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The "weasel wording" I object to is not that they don't state that the transmissions of the two helicopters are the same design, the "weasel wording" are grandiose terms unsupported by references used to disguise any clear relationship between, as the references say, shared features and designs between the two helicopters. For instance, instead of saying "The rotors of the S-76 are shorter versions of the rotors designed for the S-70", because they share the same composition and airfoil, they say "the rotors of the S-76 share technology concepts of the rotors of the S-70". That is what I think is weasel wording. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia.

As for the two transmissions, both the S-76 have bull gear stages of their transmissions, and they both have planetary stages of their transmissions. Quoting the NASA pdf, "A wide variety of reduction ratios is available with two planetaries and the designer has the choice of reduction ratios for each stage to attain a specific overall ratio". As per the sikorsky archives, the S-70 pioneered a simpler, single planetary transmission shared with the S-76. A further corroborating reference is the cryogenics pdf. Even their own references mention the S-76 having a planetary transmission. They have no references supporting their claims, while 4 support the current version that correctly indicates that the S-70 and S-76 share a transmission with both planetary and bull gear stages.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

But do those components make them the same transmission? Is it the same basic design, but the S-76's is "downsized" (smaller)? Are some components in the transmission the same, and some not? Whatever the answer, it's still too much detail for an encylopedia.

In Flight International 6 May 1978, p. 1378, it states, "The S-76 rotor and drive system draws heavily on Black Hawk technology." That's a relaible source. And that's really all our text needs to say. If you have a specific published reliable source that gives a better description of the relationship between the transmissions of S-70 and the S-76, then present it. However, taking descriptions of the S-70 transmisison, and comparing it to descriptions of the S-76 transmission, even from reliable sources, is synthesis, and not something we can use in the article itself. - BilCat (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"In order to achieve the design goals, the S-76 employed technologies developed for the UH-60 BLACK HAWK helicopter. Among the features are: titanium and composite main rotor blades, a bearingless composite tail rotor, bifilar vibration absorbers, and a simplified main rotor transmission." "The Main Gearbox has as its final reduction a bull gear with two spur gear inputs. This is considerably simpler than the planetary gear system used in previous Sikorsky helicopter models Each engine has a separate power train all the way up to the bull gear through a single spur and a single bevel mesh."(from the sikorsky archives) A feature shared by the S-70 and the S-76 is a simplified transmission. It's corroborated by 4 sources. It seems fairly straightforward to me, and I don't see how it could be called synthesis.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

First, those are descriptions of features, not shared components. The FI article states the main rotor blades use the same contruction techniques, and materials, but that "The twist of the S-76 main rotor blades is, by Black Hawk standards, a modest 10°", meaning that even the blades aren't exactly the same. Second, the Sikorky archive states "A feature shared by the S-70 and the S-76 is a simplified transmission." Again, the word "feature" is used, and it does not state the transmissions have the same exact parts, or even the same exact design - just that they both feature a simplified transmision compared to previous Sikorsky designs. So yes, you are drawign conclusions from the sources that they don't make, and that is synthesis. - BilCat (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be an issue if I were trying to stretch "they share the feature" into "they share the exact model". The twist is not a difference in the blade, it is the difference in the angle which the blade is held. I don't see how you claim synthesis on the transmission. I suppose there are two ways to read "a shared feature is a simplified transmission." I suppose to solve the ambiguity you could say "while their transmissions are not identical, they share a simplified design".TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Point taken on the rotors. Even "while their transmissions are not identical, they share a simplified design" is probably reading in too much into it. Without something more explicit on the respective transmission designs, it's better to leave that out. A paraphase of "The S-76 rotor and drive system draws heavily on Black Hawk technology" is still accurate and sufficient for an erncyclopedia. I thinks that's enough here for now, as I have real life needs to attend to. I'll check back here in a week to see how things stand. - BilCat (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi TTT, I'm hoping that you don't see this as anything other than an attempt to understand your point of view, because the written word is a very poor substitute for an actual conversation. I would like to know why you believe that the S-76 is a civil version of the S-70. I believe that it isn't; because it's smaller in all dimensions, lighter and doesn't look remotely the same except to the degree that one would expect any two twin-engine helicopters to have some similarities - in other words, to me an S-76 and S-70 are no more alike than an S-76 and an Agusta A109.

I can see why you would think that "In order to achieve the design goals, the S-76 employed technologies developed for the UH-60 BLACK HAWK helicopter. Among the features are: titanium and composite main rotor blades, a bearingless composite tail rotor, bifilar vibration absorbers, and a simplified main rotor transmission" means that they are the same, but the second sentence doesn't explicitly state that the features are shared by both types, it doesn't say "among the features shared by the UH-60 and S-76 are..." although as I said, I can see how it would be easy to mentally insert those words so to speak. With respect to the sentences "the Main Gearbox has as its final reduction a bull gear with two spur gear inputs. This is considerably simpler than the planetary gear system used in previous Sikorsky helicopter models Each engine has a separate power train all the way up to the bull gear through a single spur and a single bevel mesh", nobody is disputing that these are true statements for the S-76 (no-one is disputing that the rotors are related either). However, and I have actually spent several hours trying, I cannot see where you have succeeded in demonstrating that the description could equally be applied to the S-70 transmission. I assume you have read the S-76 talk page recently, where I discuss the UH-60 training notes you put forward as a ref? I really would have liked to find reference to a bull gear final reduction - if nothing else in order to put this controversy to bed and move on - but I cannot. Which page did you see it on? I can't find any reference to the UH-60 having a bull gear in the NASA document either, could you provide a page number for that? Especially as both documents demonstrate that the UH-60 has a sun gear with a set of five planetary gears as final reduction. Is this all down to a difference in terminology, akin to my "capsicum" being the same as another person's "bell pepper" or my "thongs" being "flip-flops" under another name? Then there is the second sentence: "this is considerably simpler than the planetary gear system used in previous Sikorsky helicopter models". The S-70 is a "previous model", which leads me back to posing the question of why you think that one is the civil version of the other.

I will keep an eye on your talk page and hope for a reply soon. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Two people can argue about whether one thing fits into category A, or category B. Is the strabucks "venti" large? Medium? Is george W Bush a republican or not? People disagree. I haven't cared whether you call the S-76 a variant or a derivative for weeks. There is no right answer, there is no wrong answer. To me what you're saying is that a Volkswagon minibus should be more closely related to a toyota HiAce than a beetle, or that an AH-1 cobra helicopter is more closely related to a Ka-50 than a huey.

The S-76A transmission is about as closely related to the S-76D transmission as it is to the S-70 transmission. There are diagrams of the S-70 transmission on both the uh60 student handout and the nasa pdf that show exactly how the description of the S-76 applies to the S-70. The engine inputs are separate until the spur gears of the two inputs mesh with a central bull gear as shown in both diagrams. That reduction is the final reduction of the two input paths. It goes on to say that the synchronization mechanism of helicopter transmissions prior to the S-70/S-76 transmissions were more complicated, not using this simplified bull gear setup. Neither input path has a planetary transmission. "The Main Gearbox has as its final reduction a bull gear with two spur gear inputs."TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The diagram you refer to in what you call the UH60 student handout, is that the one on Page D-6 of the Fort Rucker document? YSSYguy (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Righto, thanks. YSSYguy (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so referring to that diagram, I can see the two input modules shown driving a large circular gear in the main module; is that what you are describing as the bull gear? YSSYguy (talk) 08:55, 30 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:

In retrospect, any edit warring on DRN is obviously terrible, and nobody should revert other editors edits without discussion, particularly on DRN. It's obvious that Admins must act to protect the dispute resolution process. Admins have pointed out that it was not the isolated incident that caused the week long block, but the reason for the block is also the larger edit conflict at the sikorsky s-76 page. I have been participating in the discussion there from the start and I will continue to do so. I realize now that I should have used wikipedia's dispute resolution process in both cases. I should have used wikipedia's dispute resolution process in the case of S-76, submitting it to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and then when discussion failed to prevent the removal of that discussion from the DRN, while I did discuss it with Steven Zhan I should have discussed it with the other editor, starting a discussion in the talk page, and if that failed, which, judging by the hostility of the edit summarys, I should have submitted it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I know everyone involved treats the dispute resolution process as sacrosanct, other users, and to a much greater extent the Admins, who understand how vital it is to wikipedia to foster discussion in brokering the solutions to disputes, and how vital it is to follow wikipedia policy admin guidance on not treating edit wars as being onesided. Seeing the other side particularly to someone trying to restore a discussion to the DRN that someone deleted repeatedly without discussion.

I obviously didn't discuss the matter enough. I should have made every effort possible to bring the other participants to a discussion. And with respect to the S-76 discussion that again was the problem. I should have somehow brought the deadlocked discussion to some kind of dispute resolution mechanism.

I realize that I shouldn't have reverted during disputes and I should have discussed it, and I will practice the zero revert rule for the near future in cases where I have made an edit, and the one revert rule when other people have made an edit. I will discuss the disputes in the talk page first, then I will bring it to the attention of DRN. If there someone starts a dispute on DRN, I will engage in them on their talk page, then I will discuss it on the talk page, and then I will report it to DRN, or I will report them for edit warring. It is truely inexcusable for anyone to edit war on DRN, and obviously Admins will swiftly deal with anyone that does.

I need to trust the wikipedia system more. I need to trust the dispute resolution process more. I need to trust DRN more, and I need to trust the de facto DRN admin more. I need to trust wikipedia Admins more. They block to prevent disruptive editing, like edit warring to sabotage discussion on DRN. They use the block as a tool to prevent editors from reverting other editors work without discussion even when the editors are acting as a group. I need to trust that wikipedia admins will see that when like minded editors act as a group to revert the edits of others without discussion that that is disruptive edit warring.

And now I do trust the wikipedia system. I trust the dispute resolution process. I trust the DRN. The admins will obviously protect the dispute resolution process neutrally. I trust the Admins. And I trust other editors to act in good faith, and to not use numbers to game the system. I trust that everyone on wikipedia understands that truth is not the product of a vote, That the consensus is not voted on. And I do.

After I am unblocked, as I said I will operate by the 0/1 revert rule. I will discuss disputes rather than reverting other editors work. I will bring the disputes to the DRN so they can be discussed there. If that fails I will try arbitration, or RFC, or other mechanisms for dispute resolution provided by wikipedia.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This block has been superceded by the personal attacks indef block. Max Semenik (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As a note to the reviewing admin this came after the above block request was posted, and is the reason I've extended the duration of the block. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:TeeTylerToe. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. You were advised that if you engage in personal attacks or incivility you may be blocked from editing your own talk page. Less than two hours later you engaged in a personal attack against two Misplaced Pages editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What do I do to complain about the condescending attitude you two share?TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep it to yourself. Do a WP:RfC/U without violating WP:NPA. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 15:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How about 1 more and we revoke talkpage editing and increase the block duration 1 week. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 15:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume you haven't even casually glanced at the comments Guy Macon, Ahunt, and The Bushranger have been making towards me.

Oh, and if you read the NPA, it's not NPA if you can point to instances where Ahunt and Guy Macon did do those things, which I can.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read up on WP:Guide to appealing blocks#Talk about yourself, not others. Take heed. --Dave 17:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an information page.
It is not an encyclopedic article, nor one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.

Shortcuts

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia.middle

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia.

An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge.

Misplaced Pages is freely available, and combines many features
of general and specialized encyclopedias and other reference works.

Misplaced Pages is not a dumping ground for random information.

Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish unverifiable material.

Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your own ideas.

Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your opinions.

Misplaced Pages is not a free advertising space.

Misplaced Pages is not a social networking site.

Misplaced Pages is not an advocacy platform.

Misplaced Pages is not an internet directory.

Misplaced Pages is not for medical advice.

Misplaced Pages is not for legal advice.

Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy.

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy.

Misplaced Pages is not an anarchy.

Misplaced Pages is not censored.

Misplaced Pages is not nearly this in-your-face most of the time.

Block extended to indefinite

I've just extended the duration of your block to indefinite for continuing to make serious personal attacks. If this is how you behave while blocked, I have no confidence at all that you'll behave in an acceptable fashion when the block expires. You may request that this block be reviewed using the same procedure as before, but your ability to edit this talk page will be revoked if you make any further personal attacks. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As noted before per wikipedia policy on NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.". The definition of edit warring per wikipedia policy is "editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Also you cannot game the system with meatpacking as that to meets the wikipedia definition of edit warring. "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.""

Guy Macon's actions alone constitute edit warring in both the S-76 page and the DRN page where he abused his volunteer status and edit warred. He repeatedly reverted other editors edits, he didn't participate in the discussion on the DRN talk page, and his edit summaries were hostile, accusing me of "vandalism". Misplaced Pages has clear and strong policies on accusing other editors of vandalism. And the group actions of the people with similar editing habits including the various editors collectively edit warring on the S-76 page are guilty of edit warring as per wikipedia policy.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As you've continued to attack Guy, I've just removed your ability to edit this talk page. As noted by other editors above, he was doing his job per community norms, and edit warring with volunteers on the dispute resolution noticeboard who are performing housekeeping tasks is a really bad idea. I note that you have an unblock request outstanding, and if that is rejected (as I'm certain that it will be), you may also request to be unblocked via Misplaced Pages:Unblock Ticket Request System, but any such request must address the reason for the block. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've considered your email, and have decided to not to restore your ability to edit this page as you are continuing to argue that your attacks on Guy were justified, when they obviously aren't. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

For your benefit

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of verifiability and neutral point of view policies.

FWIW, please watch this and try to understand what we've been trying to tell you. Secondly, you are encouraged to be bold but not reckless. Lastly, READ also this two policies → WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence & WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV) ←, doing so repeatedly without discussing things properly despite being told not to can and will lead to you being BLOCKED or BANNED permanently from Misplaced Pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave1185 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 30 July 2012‎ (UTC)

For the tape...

I've allowed you talkpage access to make another appeal. — foxj 21:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

The overwhelming consensus here was to decline the unblock. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:AN#TeeTylerToe unblock request. Max Semenik (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

While that commitment in regards to communicating with other editors looks good, I've got two questions:

What is it that you wish to work on?
Are you willing to commit to not working on the Sikorsky S-76 article? Your behaviour in relation to this article was highly unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The block for that ended August 4th. Why is it relevant?TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"I have to say I see a very tendentious approach to editing there, and I'm not entirely convinced that there's a solid commitment to respecting consensus and to following a much more collegial approach. It's good to see an agreement to stop the personal attacks, and good to see an agreement to follow procedures better in the previous unblock request - but it does concern me that in each case it took so long and so much hammering by others to get that far. And edit-warring so fiercely at DRN, of all places, showed staggeringly bad judgment - can we be confident that a lack of such judgment can and has been improved? OK, that's my fears, but I think I could cautiously support an unblock with a 1RR restriction, and an understanding that any repeat of the same behavior will lead straight back to a fresh block." Boing! said Zebedee

The tendentious editing page describes tendentious editing as biased or a non NPOV. A reliable source stated that the S-76 shares the simplified transmission of the S-70. I argued that as this was supported by consensus and there is no source that I know of, or that has since been brought to light that contradicts this. How was that not neutral?

As for the consensus, see above. There seem to be many misapprehensions about wikipedia policy on consensus. It's not a show of hands the way many people believe. Many people involved in this dispute believed that there was one right side, and one wrong side, and that was probably the driving force behind the unbelievable OR that was used to try to justify the removal of properly referenced edits. That is not what consensus on wikipedia is.

Let's say there were properly referenced dissent to the statement that the S-76 shares the simplified transmission of the S-70. A proper consensus would be to present both ideas, and provide the appropriate references for each.

As for the collegial approach, I was routinely threatened, and at one point I was told that if I wanted to have an opinion I should create a subreddit on reddit where I could be the mod and ban anyone I wanted indefinitely that disagreed with me. I admit I responded to that editor in kind and told them they were condescending. Other than that I was fairly collegial, and I would ask that you provide references to this behavior you call non-collegial.

The entire unblock system is rather backwards. It first requires a mea culpa before you have a chance to plead your innocence. While that basically gives admins carte blanch, it puts people who have been blocked at an obvious disadvantage.

"it took so long and so much hammering by others". I offered the restrictions on my behavior on july 30. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.

Also could you tell me exactly how I was "fierce" in my edits to the DRN? I've been told that Guy Macon has acknowledged that he was involved in the dispute (has anyone told Nick-D?). He unilaterally closed the dispute on the DRN that he was involved in before it had been opened or been commented on by any neutral third party. I restored the dispute to the DRN, which was then reverted by Steven Zhang. I discussed it collegially with Steven Zhang, and Steven Zhang made noises about how an RFC might work, and that there are other avenues of dispute resolution then quickly closed the discussion without any definitive response. Seeing no harm in a new dispute being listed on the DRN I again restored it when Guy Macon started his reverts without any discussion or participation.

What did I do that was fierce?

What did I do that was so unique in it's poor judgement? Did I revert repeatedly without discussion?TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just posted that in the WP:AN thread. Regards Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry, I made a typo in the third sentence. I put "argued that as this was supported by consensus and there is no source that I know of, or that has since been brought to light that contradicts this." I meant supported by references, not consensus. Sorry.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And you responded. What personal attacks did I make against Guy Macon and where? The topic was discussed at great length over weeks. Can you point out any point where the question was that I couldn't source the statement that the S-76 shares the simplified transmission of the S-70? I remember people saying that the 20,000 RPM turbines were reduced to 200RPM in a single transmission stage, that people brought up statements that the S-76 employs a planetary transmission, which didn't contradict the original statement, and several other opinions were aired against the referenced statement, but where was the question raised that I did not support my statement? It was really quite an involved, long, drawn out dispute, so I'm sure it played a massive massive role but I can't find it looking back now.

What makes you think I would edit disruptively?

Again, please someone post this in the discussion.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to dangerouspanda, I understand that editors can't insult one another, and that I shouldn't have reverted on the DRN. I don't see what citing GAB has to do with anything. What did I say that makes you think that I would repeat the things that I was blocked for?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, and all the possible arguments you could be making but didn't because I suppose you didn't feel the need to, it occurred to me that you could think that I really was editing tendentiously, that's why I was blocked for edit warring for a week in july, and that that's why... well, that's one of the arguments you decided not to make. I suppose you didn't make the argument that I was subject to a one week block in july because I reverted edits restoring a new dispute to the drn about an article where you didn't make the argument that I could be seen to have been repeating the same argument without convincing people.

There are times when no argument you can make will convince other people. Did I consider that my argument could be flawed? Yes. Did I blindly refute other parties that contradicted my edits? No. At each point when another editor brought OR to the table trying to debunk the claim made by the reference I didn't ignore their dissent. That's why I know that modern technology does not have a practical single stage transmission that reduces a 3,000shp 20,000 RPM input to a 200RPM output, and why I know that early sikorsky transmissions had two planetary stages. The simpler transmission of the S-70 probably reduced the number of planetary stages from 2 to 1. I made an honest effort to make the best argument that I could, but neither side would compromise which is why I was pursuing the dispute resolution process.

Is the threat you feel but didn't voice that I could pursue dispute resolution through probably RFC as DRN seems to have given up?TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just posted the above at WP:AN Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Help Me

First, could someone create a RFC for Sikorsky S-76? "design technology" seems non-encyclopedia weasel wording, and I don't think the article accurately reflects the content of the sikorsky archives reference. There. Problem solved.

I'm restricted to talk page access but I would like this to be posted in the thread where my block is being discussed http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AN#TeeTylerToe_unblock_request

The 1 week block that expired august 4th was not for disruptive editing on the s-76 page. It was for restoring a dispute on the DRN. Many of the people opposing my unblock request seem to be doing it both because I feel that there are still problems with the S-76 article.

First, last I checked the article about a month ago, I had two problems with it. One, is that the use of the term "engineering technologies" is unencyclopedic weasel wording. Second, it doesn't reflect the content of the references referenced in the article.

Now. It's my understanding that IF someone had a problem with my editing on that article it would be that I was either editing the article in a disruptive way, or that I was proceeding in the dispute resolution process in a disruptive way.

My intention is to constructively pursue the dispute resolution process. What problem is there with that? On July 30 I volunteered reasonable restrictions that would prevent my past errors.

What concerns do people have about me pursuing the dispute resolution process on the S-76 article? Are you concerned that I would make personal attacks? Are you concerned that I would edit war? Are you concerned that I would be otherwise disruptive? What is the concern?

What I don't understand is that people seem to have a problem that my opinion about the fact hasn't changed because so far nobody has made a compelling argument to bring that fact into question, but people seem to be bothered that I still hold that opinion. I suppose the concern is that I still intend to advocate that opinion on wikipedia, but really, what problem do you have with me saying that I would submit the article for RFC? How is that disruptive?TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think what's happening here is that people are taking this very hostile environment where nobody is acting in a way that would be conducive to regular editing. "You're a bad editor who's non-collegial, fierce, etc". Said in a normal context that would be terrible. "He's attacking this editor". "His behavior's inappropriate, he doesn't understand the issue", etc.

Basically it's a terribly hostile environment, and people are taking my defensive responses and thinking "If he edits like this normally it would be terrible.". But in this environment everyone's terrible. So take my behavior with the same grain of salt you're taking your own behavior and the behavior of your colleagues. Which is very hostile and unproductive.

To put it bluntly: you're blocked, and so cannot initiate RfCs, even if there was a good reason to to so. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I've posted the above at WP:AN though. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Further request to post comments to WP:AN thread

This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{Help me-helped}} on this page with {{Help me}}, post a new help me template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I'm limited to talk page access and I'd like this posted in the administrators noticeboard discussion on my unblock request.

Could someone explain to me why people think that when I say that I believe there is still an issue with the s-76 article and there should be an RFC about the weasel wording of "design technologies", and whether it accurately portrays the content of the sikorsky archives reference. Several people seem to think that this embodies "controversial tendencies", "battleground mentality".

It seems like these people are conflating holding a rhetorical position with, to quote WP:BATTLE, a "personal battle", "holding a grudge", "insult" "hatred", etc.

Could someone tell me how it's at all possible to conflate the one with the other?

I believe that the S-76 inherited the simplified transmission of the S-70. People have made arguments that this is wrong. I have specific reasons why none of the arguments so far presented are valid, and as proof, most, or perhaps all of them have been retracted. I'm not even specifically advocating that the article must include what I believe is correct. My actions before the ban, and my stated intentions are to continue the dispute resolution process.

So I ask, what is the eminent threat? What is the damage you fear I will do? What behavior is this indefinite block preventing?

"Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy."WP:INDEF

How does opening an RFC qualify as a "significant disruption or threats of disruption or major breaches of policy"?

Why are people advocating cooldown? WP:CDB?

Again, what is the eminent threat?

Also, Nick-D accused me of making a personal attack three days ago and still hasn't shown what personal attack I made or where. What is this new personal attack he accused me of? As there seems to be no burden of proof here, several other accusations have been made of me that I have questioned. Is there any substance to those accusations?

Also, people keep claiming that I have not admitted what have done, apologized, and have not made any claim that I would not repeat those actions. These three assertions are false.

Again I ask, why are people recommending I be blocked?

Finally, where is it stated that blocked users can't request RFCs?TeeTylerToe (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That thread is getting rather long, so instead of copying this across I will make a link from AN to here. JohnCD (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

block appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I understand that accusing guy macon of edit warring was a personal attack, and that per NPA policy that is why I was blocked. Per wikipedia blocking policy though, blocks are not punitive, blocks are preventative. So I will no longer make personal attacks in general, and obviously, not against guy macon. I also understand that consensus was formed by the people editing the article, and that I would have to present them with new references to convince them to change the consensus, and so I will no longer pursue trying to change the consensus on the s-76. I've been an editor for almost three years, I've made many positive contributions to the site, and would like to make many more. I will accept a topic ban on editing the S-76 page, pursuing dispute resolution on the topic of the S-76 and pursuing consensus on the topic of the S-76.TeeTylerToe (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Se below. Unblock under the criteria listed by User:Hasteur. Bjelleklang - talk 11:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm concerned that your reason for wanting to be unblocked is to continue to dispute for which the block was imposed. There seemed to be general agreement at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#TeeTylerToe unblock request that a starting point for the removal of this block would have to be an agreement to avoid the S-76 article entirely. This would include not participating in or starting discussions relating to the article on its talk page or anywhere else. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you'll read the last sentence, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:TeeTylerToe&diff=530569925&oldid=515371302 "I will accept a topic ban on editing the S-76 page, pursuing dispute resolution on the topic of the S-76 and pursuing consensus on the topic of the S-76." I think that addresses your concerns.TeeTylerToe (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the concerns stated by Prodego in the an/i thread, I brought the s-76 matter to the dispute resolution noticeboard where it stayed for three days while I waited for it to be discussed. At the end of three days it was still unopened in the new queue. Steven Zhang closed it making it clear that it was being closed as a matter of expediency, that he believed that the point I brought up in the dispute was synthesis (As my argument was a very close restatement of a single source I asked Steven Zhang to clarify this which he did not do), and that I could try other avenues such as RFC. Given this explicit invitation by an admin to pursue this further I have appealed my block while leaving the question of whether I should or could pursue the discussion of the s-76 matter further open. I have gotten mixed messages from more than one admin, and I have no problem dropping the matter entirely and, as in my block appeal, I will accept a topic ban or whatever else on this subject.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd consider unblocking you with the caveat that there be a voluntary temporary topic ban on S-76, which includes things like RFC, etc. Ideally also, we'd have a mentor for you, but I can't dedicate that kind of time myself. With that caveat, I think that should resolve the question of whether your unblock would be to continue the S-76 dispute. ⇒SWATJester 08:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

TTT, could you please also specify which topics you intend to work on if you were unblocked? Swatjester; I think that a permanent agreement to stay away from the S-76 article is necessary given the level of disruption which led to this block. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I mostly edit articles about computer related topics, but I've also been editing articles about watches and artillery, but I normally visit a wide range of topics and generally fix typos when I see them, and add whatever information I'm looking for if it's missing.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that staying away from the S-76 article, its talkpage, anything to do with it ... as far as possible would be best for at least 6 months. Even above, you're filling the page with "I believe that..." statements, which is wP:OR, so any form of DRN or RFC that includes that kind of continuous disruption will never be good for the project. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that "6 months" has its own special meaning to BWilkins. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

User requested unblocking via IRC

This user came into the unblock channel on IRC stating that this unblock request at ANI had been archived without resolution, providing this link. The discussion indicates that people would support an unblock with concurrent mentorship and topic ban. The discussion then went stale before a mentor was found and it was archived. This meant the request was, effectively, declined without prejudice. I have informed this user that, in order to be reconsidered for an unblock, he should post on this talk page indicating that he wishes for a mentor to be found for him. After me having to repeat myself to the user several times that he must find a mentor to be unblocked, he abruptly left the unblock channel. A log of this chat is available on request, should anyone wish to review it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Since there was a nice mass people who commented on the request I brought it back and added a comment. (TTT did approach me over irc to do this.)--Guerillero | My Talk 05:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of other editors, the thread is at WP:ANI#TeeTylerToe Block Appeal. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship Proposal

I'm willing to mentor you with the following conditions

A topic ban (Broadly Construed) on the subject area of helicopters for the duration of the mentorship.
A 1-RR restriction for the duration of the mentorship.
A voluntary agreement that should the mentorship be terminated on non-amicable terms, the status quo ante of indefinite block shall be restored.
That prior to the commencement of mentorship you propose a set of topics or topic areas that you feel you could contribute to without causing disruption.
That the mentorship shall continue untill such time that you, me, and the community feel that the process has come to a natural end.
That the end of the mentorship be transitioned into more permissive versions of the above restrictions.

I will ask that the ANI discussion be held for 48 hours to give you an opportunity to respond. Hasteur (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, I accept. For the record when I approached Guerillero I made it clear that I had already approached Deskana, and that Deskana had made it clear that my unblock would be conditioned on someone mentoring me. It seems that rumor and speculation would have people believe that something else took place.

I have previously floated offers that I would edit following 1rr. As for topic, I've been adding watch articles because I've recently become interested in watches and I've been learning about different movements that have interesting histories. I've been adding articles about different Artillery shells because, for instance, the US military replaced it's main artillery shell, but wikipedia didn't have an article on it. I've been editing articles on US navy destroyers and frigates because the US navy has redesigned every one of it's warships and submarines except it's ballistic sub. I've been editing on computer, and device hardware articles because I like computer and device hardware. Similarly I've been editing on software articles, and networking articles. I created the Memory Geometry article, and I completely rewrote the article on network bridging. I've also been focusing on GPU video codec acceleration. I've also been doing a bit of editing on car related articles. I've been focusing a bit on diesel engines, and improving the coverage of car designs. Generally if I'm reading an article and I see errors or omissions I try to improve them, and I don't restrict myself to any one area, and I don't carve out any project, other than, if I create an article, I try to get it to the point where it covers the important points.

I've made hundreds of edits without causing disruption. To state the obvious, the disruption occurs in the dispute resolution process. I intend to takes a hands off approach to dispute resolution, avoiding situations that could become disruptive.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked you as a result of the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#TeeTylerToe Block Appeal and your acceptance of User:Hasteur's conditions above, and wish you all the best with future editing! :) Bjelleklang - talk 08:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.TeeTylerToe (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Plan for editing

I'm going to, for the most part, watch from the shadows. If I see an edit that is questionable I'm going to caution you. Before we start on mainspace editing, can you please review the policies/guidelines/best practices regarding disputes. I'm not asking you to get involved in resolving them, I want you to understand why portions of the community percieved your edits as disruptive.

Second, I want you to understand the nuances of the Edit Warring policy. Specifically the understanding about 3RR being a bright line test for absolute edit warring as opposed to the more subtle repeating of revert over a longer period. Hasteur (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My edits were disruptive because they violated the consensus. I believe this quote from the tendentious editing article sums it up best. "It is important to recognize that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Misplaced Pages’s assume good faith guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate." - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#What_is_tendentious_editing.3F TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

is interesting. Admins should be aware of this before proceeding any further. Getting (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Getting. Before we go any further I'd like to strongly suggest you drop this line of inquest. We do not connect IP addresses to usernames publicly. The IP address had a history of playing around. The IP address spoofed TTT's signature. You on the other hand seem to think Wikipeida is a game by posting faux warning messages on your talk page and trying to stir up trouble. I reviewed the post in question and don't see anything outright harmful in it, but I will ping the user mentioned to see what they think. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I just saw your edit to the 152mm gun article. Very nice on a minor change, however I do have some suggestions.

You didn't put an edit summary in to explain the change. Edit summaries are nice for other editors so they can (at high level) look and see what has changed. It's generally best practice to have enough details in the edit summary.
While it might not be contested, it never hurts to cite assertions on a page. I assume you got that range fact from the external link. I took the external link, slapped the bare minimum of reference work on it, and placed the refs template on the page to improve it's chances against a future challange of deletion.

Let me know if you have questions. Hasteur (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI:

FYI, you were mentioned on my talk page. You have no obligation to respond, although of course you are welcome to do so. I just wanted you to be aware of the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship feedback

Took a look over your edits since we last talked. Per WP:EDITSUMMARY It is good practice to fill in the Edit summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit. Is there a particular reason why you have not been using them? Even if it's as simple as "Responding to Hasteur", it allows other editors (at a glance) to understand if there's a problem or friendly discussion. Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I count 8 article space edits, and of them, 7 have edit summaries, and the one that doesn't is a minor edit. I'm not quite sure what edit summary policy is on talk pages.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at the recent changes you've made and I noticed the lack. Ideally you should use an edit summary every single time, it makes it easier to get an idea if there's a problem and can convey extra nuances to other editors. Just a suggestion. Hasteur (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Are you talking about talk page edits?TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about your comments on the talk pages from Feburary 8th onward . I observe that you've only used whatever the automated edit summary (editing a section) which is effectively useless when trying to scan edits. Hasteur (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't typically use edit summaries on talk page edits. As I noted above, I don't know what the policy on talk page edit summaries is, but I don't see them as being particularly useful.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AN/UYQ-70, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AEGIS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Aviastar

Please don't use Aviastar as a source. It is fraught with copyright infringements. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Your questions at Kelapstick's RFA

I was asked by @Drmies: on my talk page if I was still involved with mentoring you. Drmies took issue with the questions you were asking being more about adminship in general than asking concrete questions to a specific candidate. Looking at the questions I also get the impression that you're speech-ifying and trying to drag admin resentment into the fold rather than asking a question of the candidate. Though it's not involved with the mentorship, I would like to suggest that you strike the 2nd and 3rd questions as they're more about irritating a past dispute than asking questions to evaluate a candidate's worthyness. Hasteur (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems like Drmies, as one of the people that nominated Kelapstick, is possibly being overprotective of him, going so far as to pry into the pasts of people that ask questions in the RFA, discover they're being mentored, then, indirectly lean on the person asking the question through the mentor. While I feel both questions are perfectly valid, if they are too specific, I can make them more general. For instance, I think asking someone nominated to become an admin how an admin could misbehave or abuse their powers is perfectly valid, and not a manifestation of "admin resentment". And is asking an admin to expound their views on consensus "speechifying" or somehow inappropriate? I think both questions are valid, asking him about the fallability of admins, how avoid the "dark side", and asking for him to give his views on consensus. If you or Drmies can bring up specific things that you feel are inappropriate, I'll consider changing the questions, possibly make them a little more general.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you know exactly what I mean, TeeTylerToe. In fact, they're not too specific: they're too general, and have nothing to do with the candidate. And really, there's a dozen questions in them. Hasteur, I really appreciate your comment; thank you. TeeTylerToe, of course I'm being protective of the candidate I nominated. That's my job, if you will, but even if it weren't "my" candidate, I'd still have looked into it: RfA is often a contentious process, and RfAs are all-too easily derailed; as an admin, it is also my job to try and keep the process fair and clean. RfAs are not the place to take issue with general problems of adminship, admin culture, etc. I would appreciate your striking those questions, yes. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think RFA should be a rubber stamp process. I think the nominee should actually be asked what his opinions are about things like how to be a good admin, and how to arrive at consensus. If you can make the argument that my questions weren't asking the nominee about his opinions, and rather were trying to turn the RFA into some kind of referendum I'll try to address that, but I do want admin nominees to actually have opinions. There are close to 40 supports, but none of the current questions or answers really even scratched the surface.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Reading through your comments and questions at RfA, it seems to me (at least) that you may possibly just have a general antipathy towards admins. I may of course be wrong, but it sticks out to me like a sore thumb. If that is indeed the case, then RfA is not the best place to air it. That does not in any way imply that you cannot ask questions or cast an 'oppose' vote, but it would be good to keep RfA as drama-free as possible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

First, you're coming off as a cartoon villain. He had two chances, one answering question 5, then answering my question. The best he could do is that he might not just hate editors, he might hate other admins too... I think you'll agree that's not the best answer. I spoon fed him everything. He was asking for me to give my support to him to become an admin. I asked him if q5's admin/editor us V them is all the editor's fault. He can not have been surprised that when he didn't give the blindingly obvious answer he lost my support. And you're the third person that's told me to what a big problem my questions are without being able to give even a half decent argument. Here. I'm asking the "wrong" questions. You ask him the right questions. Get him to talk about mistakes admins can make. Get him to talk about building consensus. Get him to talk about why a stub of an article about square milk jugs or lego tires is better than folding it in to the main article. ***Get him to talk about how admins can interact with editors in a way that minimizes conflict, and adversarial interactions.*** Get him to talk about why his answer to question 5 assumed that the problem was not a two way problem, but only a problem with editors, where admins are faultless. Get him to talk about CSD A7/9, and how it can be borderline when it is very explicitly black and white. CSD A7/9 isn't to argue importance, it's a yes/no is importance claimed, whether or not it is even referenced, or verified.TeeTylerToe (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything more, but since you responded - without even addressing what I said - I've taken a look at your editing history.

Fourteen questions from one editor is right over the top and as near incitement to drama as I can imagine. And from the style of them, I would almost call it harassment of a candidate. I do not appear to be far wrong in my earlier comment. Putting your PA aside, I think the cartoon villain is someone else, don't you? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

i appreciate your open mindness

	appreciation
	you have declined my article stating that my article is a duplicate of history of computer hardware yes if i analyse properly u are ultimately correct but would it be okay if i put this as a sub section in history of computer hardware i wait for a reply Ilayaaditya (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources on articles

You need to drop the request for an editor that has not edited an article defend sources. I looked at the last 500 edits of both Operation Charnwood and SheiKra. Dr.K. has not edited either one. There is no reason he has to defend the sources in either one. If you feel the sources are not valid, bring it up on the article's talk page. There editors that have worked on the articles can address your concerns. Please do not try to influence discussions by bringing up points that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand as you have done at WP:RSN. GB fan 00:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

He gets to make crazy credential demands, but I can't make the point that blogspot links make it to featured articles, and that it's just as crazy to demand credentials of the author of an article on a horology website as it is to ask him to provide credentials for the average published book cited on Operation Charnwood?TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes you can make the point that blogspot made it into a featured article. The proper place to do that is on the appropriate article's talk page. The proper editors to raise that question to are the ones that work on that article. Dr.K. has nothing to do with either of those articles so he does not have to answer about the use of those sources. It isn't the same to ask you, the editor that added a source to an article, to defend the source as asking him to defend sources on articles he has not worked on. GB fan 01:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the rules on sourcing are different on the G-shock article than they are on the SheiKra article, or the Operation Charnwood article or on any other article. And I think it is "the same" to ask him if he would question the credentials of a published book author in the same way that he's questioning the credentials of an article contributor to timezone.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The rules on sourcing are not different from one article to the next. You did not ask him if he would question credentials of authors you said you wanted him to provide credentials for all of the authors of the books on one article and all the authors of websites on another article. The editors that need to defend the sources are those that use them not someone who hasn't used the sources. You used this source and other editors used sources on those two articles. If you are concerned about the sources discuss it with the editors that used them. GB fan 01:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Asking him to defend the use of blogspot, and to give credentials for books cited in Operation Charnwood were rhetorical questions. The important thing is not the credentials of the authors of the books cited in operation charnwood.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of CODEC Acceleration

The article CODEC Acceleration has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, and apparently duplicates the content of the articles listed in its see also section

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Los Angeles-class submarine page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Intel HD and Iris Graphics may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| openglversion = ]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Intel HD and Iris Graphics

Hello! Sorry for this revert, but it's quite unlikely that someone else than you would fill in those references while also providing relevant page numbers in PDF files – and the whole thing isn't that usable with no page numbers. As noted in my edit summary, I've also been reverted more than once for not providing complete references, and most of the time I didn't feel bad about it. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually no, it would require much more time and effort as the exact page numbers are needed, that's why I've left the note above instead of doing it myself. I'd appreciate if you could fill in those references. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't revert pages to revisions that have false information on them. If you have a dire need to add page numbers, do it yourself. It's pretty easy. Just open the pdfs, and go to the first graphics section.TeeTylerToe (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for reverting your edits, my thoughts were that you'd be filling in those references. However, I don't feel such a strong itch about filling in those references, but everyone should be adding non-bare references anyway. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Central Intelligence Agency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Triangle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Central Intelligence Agency page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Central Intelligence Agency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Spanish, Bill Buckley, Contra and Corinto

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Central Intelligence Agency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to National Security Advisor, Partisan, Richard Clarke and John McLaughlin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Select fire assault weapons

Your change is fine because it matches the source closely. Just so you know, Select fire weapons may also be configured for burst modes such as a three shot triburst or two shot rapid fire (double tap). These weapons may have select fire in the sense that you may have select fire single shot, semi-auto, triburst (or two shot) and full auto modes. That is why select fire is less ambiguous.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cisco routers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

CIA

Before changing tags and/or moving them around, you should start, or join a discussion on the talk page first. Just sayin'... - WOLFchild 01:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the logs you'll see that I was just trying to change the page wide banner to the smaller banner (actually I was hoping to get one of those "this page has issues (unhide)" things going but I don't think you can turn the long prose thing into a hide/unhide thing, but, for some reason the small version of the long article box is long section, not long article, so I changed it to the small version, and the box was suddenly saying long section instead of long article even though I had only added a "small" tag, it had completely changed the tag. It was at that point that I moved the tag to the section.TeeTylerToe (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

POV-tag on Assault rifle

Hello. According to the the documentation at Template:POV your repeated addition of the tag is frivolous:

When to use
Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Misplaced Pages's content policies.
An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Misplaced Pages editors or the public are irrelevant.
When to remove
This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

A) The article represents the mainstream view, and thus can't possibly be POV (see quote above), which means it should never have been added.
B) It is not clear from your posts on Talk:Assault rifle what the neutrality problems are supposed to be (other than general discontent with not being able to get your way...), which means it can be removed.
C) And everyone who has had any interest in it, both on the talk page of the article and at the NPOV noticeboard, has opposed you/disagreed with there being a POV-problem, which also means it can be removed.

So stop adding the tag! Thomas.W 16:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Assault rifle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Thomas.W 16:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Assault rifle". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 July 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Assault rifle, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Assault rifle. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

What reason for block?

@KrakatoaKatie: I'm not seeing a reason given for the block. On the ew watchlist it's said "I feel two weeks is appropriate" for stuff that happened three years ago. What I assume is boilerplate says that I was edit warring on the AR article which is wrong. I didn't revert a single edit. In the message left on this page above it says I should discuss changes which I've done for a day short of a month. Although people have continually denied it, I developed consensus with Herr Gruber. I already pursued several avenues of dispute resolution as someone who read the comments in the talk page or on the edit war noticeboard might have noticed. At each turn I was stonewalled immediately. Some parties were quite proud of this almost from the beginning. I'm perfectly happy to pursue protections on the article although it's already under some level of protection. I don't see anything else or any clear reason for the block. Again, I didn't revert a single edit, while a group of meatpuppets did violate 3rr twice, once against the POV tag, explicitly against the instructions of the tag, and again performing four reverts in two hours.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You were blocked for edit warring, as it plainly says in the block notice. You have been here long enough to know what WP:EW says: a revert is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole in part, whether involving the same or different material. You have been edit warring over content and maintenance tags, and you have been warned repeatedly to stop. Apparently you didn't get the message in your last experience, and I feel the two weeks is necessary to stop you from further edit warring. Katie 22:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: ::What action of an editor did I revert? I didn't reverse the action of other editors in whole or in part. There certainly were 4 reverts in 2 hours but I didn't perform a single one of them. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." You've mistaken me for the editors that reversed my actions. I put a dubious tag by the sentence saying that germans were first to pioneer assault rifles. That was reverted. Then I put a dubious tag by the sentence Assault rifles were first used in ww2. That was reverted. Then I put a dubious tag by the sentence that the 7.92 kurz was revolutionary. That was reverted. Then I put a dubious tag by the sentence that said that the principle of the stg-44 was the most important advance since smokeless powder. At no point did I reverse any editor's actions. These are four entirely different contentions, each of which I can support. " An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." You'll find, again, that it's the meat puppets actions that are covered. I did not revert the article to my preferred version a single time. They did four times in two hours. Even more in 24 hours iirc. "The three-revert rule states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions." I did not revert a single thing. How did break any rule or policy?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Instructions for appealing the block are included in the block message. If you can't understand that you've been edit warring against multiple independent editors, your chances of a successful appeal aren't high. Katie 11:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't edit war at all, I didn't make a single revert. If they'd been patient enough to wait 2 hours it would only have been one revert, or if I'd made all the changes in a single edit than it would have just been one revert. Not to mention as if a group of, say, friends, said to one another, "Hey, let's meat puppet. Sure it violates WP:SOCK but they'll never know. They don't enforce that anymore. Maybe the blocks are too tough or some bs."TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)@KrakatoaKatie:

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

Request reason:

Let's try short and sweet. I'm a good editor with a good history over 6 years with 1700 edits, and I've created 19 articles, although it would be easy to superficially judge me by one thing that happened 3 years ago, demonstrably. I didn't revert a single thing, and did not intentionally violate edit warring policy. When the issue was taken to the EW noticeboard I stopped editing. I've asked exactly how I violated the policy but I haven't seen diffs and attached explanations of exactly how I violated the policy. The page says that edit warring is one person or a group of socks, or meat puppets, friends who have agreed to act in unison per WP:SOCK repeatedly reverting an article to their preferred version. I can't see how my actions could be covered by that. I had 4 different issues with 4 different sentences, so, over two hours of editing, I added 4 different dubious tags to the article. Each of these edits were reverted to preserve the preferred version of the article in the coordinated efforts of a group of meat puppets who were purposefully socking to avoid 3rr violations. WP:EW policy explicitly says that this is absolutely inexcusable. The very definition of edit warring. Admin katie tells me that this understanding is somehow wrong, but she's quite tight lipped about the details, and instructed me to just make an appeal, so here we are. I should point out to admin katie and others that I can't see how adding dubious tags to sentences can be construed to be edit warring to keep a POV tag at the top of the page, although by mistake the fourth tag I added was dispute when I intended it to be dubious, but that was a mistake, that wasn't at the top of the page, and that was only one instance. That's just addressing the specific issue brought up about edit warring specifically to keep a POV tag on an article where a POV discussion is taking place. What exact damage did I do to wikipedia? What damage do people think I would do to wikipedia if I was unblocked today instead of in 13 days time? If there's anything you'd like me to go into more detail about or anything that I could add to help my case please let me know. The onus seems to entirely be on me, the wall is quite high, and guide says shorter is better.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have a history of edit warring, then trying to lawyer your way out of it with great walls of text and making accusations against those who you were warring with. You were plainly edit warring this time, and you really should know better given your experience. If you believe you have evidence of WP:SOCK violations, file a report at WP:SPI when this block is over. If you continue to make such accusations here in your unblock requests you will have your ability to edit this page revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The diffs are in the report at WP:EW, and you certainly have seen them because you took part in that discussion. And the EW policy does not say "You must not edit war, unless you believe you are not causing any damage". Also, by alluding to WP:SOCK violations once again, you are perilously close to having your talk page access revoked - so do not do that again! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee:There were diffs on the EW page, but when I asked admin katie to tell me what part of the policy I had violated she said "a revert is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole in part, whether involving the same or different material. You have been edit warring over content and maintenance tags, and you have been warned repeatedly to stop." I don't see how that applies to the diffs presented on the ew noticeboard.TeeTylerToe (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If you genuinely do not understand (even after all the years you have been here), then you do not possess the competence to be unblocked. If you do understand, then you are just being obdurate in a disruptive way. Either way, do not ping me again. Another admin will review your new unblock request and will decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Not only was TeeTylerToe edit warring...If you read in between the lines of his own statements, he was trying to trick is fellow Users into an edit war. And, then claim that, "I wasn't edit warring, I was just adding tags to the article. Its those meat puppets that are edit warring by removing the tags." This behavior is intolerable on Wiki and I recommend a permanent block.--RAF910 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

{

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

{{subst:With only 718 edits to mainspace stretched over a very long time you have an impressive block log already and not learned much rom it. I see no eason why you should not sit out this latest, appropriate block.}} Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

To address the concerns of the blocking admin per unblock request guide I intend to pursue dispute resolution and to explore requesting page protection. Per blocking policy "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users" So a punitive block violates wikipedia policy. I will not damage or disrupt wikipedia when this block is lifted. It would be a violation of this policy for this block to stay in place to force me to "sit out" the block as punishment. This is addressed in this quote from the block policy page. "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption."TeeTylerToe (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You should know by now that wikilawyering is not an effective unblock approach. Talk page access revoked for remainder of block. OhNoitsJamie 14:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Recommending that the next admin here consider withdrawing TPA due to abuse of unblock requests. Also, user is heading fast for an indef. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not a punitive block, it's to prevent further disruption from you, and claiming that you ought to be unblocked because you intend to "pursue dispute resolution" is laughable since you have clearly shown that you respect the outcome of dispute resolution only if things go your way. As for what damage you do, the main damage is being a huge time sink for other editors, since you never listen to what others say, and never respect the opinions of others, instead resorting to edit-warring, and repeatedly posting huge walls of incoherent text to wear everyone else down. And when then blocked you put all the blame on others, nothing on yourself, and accuse everyone else of being sock- or meatpuppets and/or forming a cabal against you. Meaning that there IMHO are plenty of perfectly valid reasons for upping your block to indefinite, instead of unblocking you, including WP:CIR... Thomas.W 13:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@TeeTylerToe: I know you can't reply here now, but I hope you don't mind a few words from me. I think the removal of your talk page privilege for the duration of the block is very much in your interest, as there was a very strong likelihood that you were otherwise heading for an indefinite block. I'd urge you to drop your appeals right now, take a little time off and sit back and think about what's happened here. And then start afresh when you come back and try your best to avoid getting into these disruptive disputes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16177 was submitted on Jul 19, 2016 14:44:24. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Following a discussion with TeeTylerToe on the #wikipedia-en-unblock I will unblock him per WP:ROPE, with a topic ban for the Assault rifle article and definitions of "assault rifle", including talk page discussions, for two weeks from now (by then the block would have run out anyway). I also strongly encourage TeeTylerToe to drop the stick, accept that there is no consensus for his proposed changes to that article, and find another topic entirely. If the issues that led to this block recur, and I'm more concerned about the forum shopping and accusations of bad faith than about the edit warring itself, the next block is likely to be indefinite. Huon (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:15, 19 July 2016 editUTRSBot (talk \| contribs)Bots15,600 edits This appeal is now closed (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:07, 20 July 2016 edit undoHuon (talk \| contribs)Administrators51,328 edits unblock request acceptedNext edit →
Line 627:		Line 627:
	{{ping\|TeeTylerToe}} I know you can't reply here now, but I hope you don't mind a few words from me. I think the removal of your talk page privilege for the duration of the block is very much in your interest, as there was a very strong likelihood that you were otherwise heading for an indefinite block. I'd urge you to drop your appeals right now, take a little time off and sit back and think about what's happened here. And then start afresh when you come back and try your best to avoid getting into these disruptive disputes. ] (]) 15:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)		{{ping\|TeeTylerToe}} I know you can't reply here now, but I hope you don't mind a few words from me. I think the removal of your talk page privilege for the duration of the block is very much in your interest, as there was a very strong likelihood that you were otherwise heading for an indefinite block. I'd urge you to drop your appeals right now, take a little time off and sit back and think about what's happened here. And then start afresh when you come back and try your best to avoid getting into these disruptive disputes. ] (]) 15:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
	{{UTRS-unblock-user\|16177\|Jul 19, 2016 14:44:24\|closed}}--] (]) 14:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)		{{UTRS-unblock-user\|16177\|Jul 19, 2016 14:44:24\|closed}}--] (]) 14:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

			:Following a discussion with TeeTylerToe on the #wikipedia-en-unblock I will unblock him per ], with a topic ban for the ] article and definitions of "assault rifle", including talk page discussions, for two weeks from now (by then the block would have run out anyway). I also ''strongly'' encourage TeeTylerToe to ], accept that there is no consensus for his proposed changes to that article, and find another topic entirely. If the issues that led to this block recur, and I'm more concerned about the forum shopping and accusations of bad faith than about the edit warring itself, the next block is likely to be indefinite. ] (]) 19:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:07, 20 July 2016

S-70 vs. S-76

July 2012

Blocked for one week for edit warring

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

See also

Block extended to indefinite

For your benefit

For the tape...

Help Me

Further request to post comments to WP:AN thread

block appeal

User requested unblocking via IRC

Mentorship Proposal

Unblocked

Plan for editing

FYI:

Mentorship feedback

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Aviastar

Your questions at Kelapstick's RFA

i appreciate your open mindness

Sources on articles

Proposed deletion of CODEC Acceleration

Reference Errors on 8 September

October 2014

Intel HD and Iris Graphics

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Reference errors on 24 March

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Select fire assault weapons

ArbCom elections are now open!

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

CIA

POV-tag on Assault rifle

July 2016

Formal mediation has been requested

Request for mediation rejected

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

July 2016

What reason for block?