User talk:Z07x10

License tagging for File:Roketsan-SAGE SOM.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Roketsan-SAGE SOM.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:GSh-30-1 Flanker.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:GSh-30-1 Flanker.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to upload files with missing or false information on their copyright status, as you did with File:GSh-30-1 Flanker.jpg. Please note that Wikipedia takes copyright and copyright infringement very seriously. Images and other media may only be uploaded and included if they meet the conditions stated in our image use policy, and if their provenance is clearly documented. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you. Finding an image on a forum does not make it public domain. Eeekster (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Roketsan-SAGE SOM.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Roketsan-SAGE SOM.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Warrior tracked armoured vehicle 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior IFV upgrades

Your recent edits to the Warrior IFV article suggest that the new Lockheed Martin turret with 40mm CTA International weapon is in service, or shortly about to be. The information I have suggest an in-service date of 2018. Unless you have definite information to the contrary, I believe your edits should be modified to emphasise that, while there is a firm committment to the upgrade, it is unlikely to enter service for some years. HLGallon (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Longest recorded sniper kills, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Eurofighter Typhoon, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Eurofighter Typhoon. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Fnlayson (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eurofighter Typhoon may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "<>"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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eurofighter Typhoon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC) I've already argued this matter successfully twice. Do I really need to keep re-arguing. Nobody spoke to me before changing the article this time. The sources are clear- Austrian Airforce 2495kph at 10,975m - very specific. As regards the Mach 1.8 claim. Check my source for the accleration from rest to Mach 1.6 at 11km altitude - <150s, supercruise Mach 1.5. Not really likely for a plane that's about to top out. It's not me you need to give the warning to, it's to American kids who think they own Wikipedia.[reply]

Just a bit of advice Z07x10 with all the warning on your talk page for disruptive editing and now the fact you have started attacking other editors, edit warring and threatning disruption it will not be long before you get blocked. So if you want to contine editing to improve the encyclopedia then have break think about what you are doing and how you are presenting yourself. When you a ready just present your arguments on the relevant talk page, dont edit war, dont make threats of disruption and accept sometimes that a compromise has to be made and you are not always right. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So despite the fact that I can find a reliable source that states a specific speed at a specific altitude I am wrong. Even with multiple other sources backing it up. You think it 'improves' the site to have Mach 1.8 and then 2495kph at 10,975m written next to it?Z07x10 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z07x10. I would urge you to take MilborneOne's advice. I'm sure that no-one doubts that you are editing in good faith and with sincerity. The more interesting question for me is why the Austrian Air Force should be the only one to make this claim? And ultimately, of course, such figures are all purely claims. The evidence that could be used to support them is never, or only very rarely, in the public domain. So I sometimes think we are all just chasing our tails over such matters. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. this is the sort of edit that might be deemed to be "disruptive" and which is likely to get you blocked.[reply]

Well sadly Wikipedia has become about how many friends a person can band together to babble in Talk rather than facts. You can now effectively vote for scientific facts. Most other sources that say 'Mach 2' say 'Mach 2+' which doesn't disagree with 2.35. Most other sources don't state altitude either. Maybe the Austrians are a bit lapse about Performance specs marked 'SECRET' in other nations, or maybe their classifications are different.Z07x10 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe. But I'm not sure that I, or any of the other editors on that Talk Page, can really be accused of "banding friends together to babble". I'm sure that's the very last thing any of us intend or want. Maybe you want to get blocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what you did since you failed to argue the case last time. Now the speed is quoted as Mach 1.8 with a kph number that completely contradicts it. Furthermore, you've found about the only source in the world that states the speed as under Mach 2.0 and chosen to use it. That can barely be branded as credible moderation at any level. It's people like you who have destroyed this once great site.Z07x10 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minute there, Z07x10. What exactly are you accusing me of doing here? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's see:

2,495kph@10,975m - Austrian Airforce http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml 1521mph - BAE SYSTEMS (manufacturer) http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon Mach 2.0+ - EADS http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html Mach 2+ - Technical Guide http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf By choosing to ignore 2 manufacturers, the Austrian Airforce and a technical guide you are accusing yourself.Z07x10 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, So, by not doing something that you think I should, I'm "accusing myself", yes? And it's people like me "who have destroyed this once great site", yes? But when did I last make any edit to this part of the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to play innocent here. I have presented you with data from an airforce and two manufacturers and a tech guide and you are choosing to ignore them and support the move to list the lowest top speed. That isn't legitimate unbiased moderation. Furthermore I do not understand why I am the one threatening with removal of edit privileges when I change something but not the person who changed it down to Mach 1.8 despite the 4 very reliable links I have presented you with.Z07x10 (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not quite sure of what I am guilty, sorry. You have a very novel approach to discussion, Z07x10. And I wish the other editors over there the very best of luck. It's a shame you didn't answer my question. And why do you think I have to "moderate" anything? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube link

Your post that included a YouTube copyvio copy of an MSNBC broadcast has been deleted (by me). We only link to official sites and that clearly wasn't an MSNBC site. You also posted at the wrong page, you want WP:RSN and you should start a new discussion at the bottom of the page. If you do this you can name the broadcast, etc, but you can't include the link. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The video clearly says MSNBC in the background. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52880310. . It is also backed up by the Washington post.http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-07-10/politics/36781432_1_f-22-plane-pentagon Z07x10 (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no copyvio links even on your own talk page, so I've deleted it again. It's clearly a copyright violation. And you are saying that you have other sources anyway. Only official YouTube channels can be used, ie if it's a tv network, that network's official channel. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eurofighter Typhoon 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of sources

Hello, please be more careful when you read and use sources, especially when you are engaged in an edit war on the same topic. You misrepresented 2 sources in this paragraph. The eurofighter.com doesn't say Mach 2+ at all, it actually states exactly Mach 2.0. Same thing for EADS which doesn't say Mach 2+ either, it says Mach 2.0+. Do you see the difference? if not, go read the significant figures article and them come back here. Short version, the number 0 is significant (and that's why it's there). It means that values greater or even equal to Mach 2.1 are categorically excluded. The maximum value consistent with Mach 2.0+ is Mach 2.09999... Thank you. --McSly (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eurofighter Typhoon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop edit warring about the maximum speed of Eurofighter - while you may feel that the higher speed is the correct one, continual reversion is not the way to deal with it - if consensus cannot be reached, then dispute resolution is the way forward.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of sock puppetry

False accusations of sock puppetry like you did here are not treated lightly on WP and unsupported accusations won't be tolerated. So you have 2 choices now. You can either file a WP:SPI request with proof or unequivocally retract that accusation. Make that choice quickly. --McSly (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Z07x10 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: ). Thank you. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have also triple R'ed. Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Eurofighter Typhoon

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Eurofighter Typhoon. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Z07x10 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: 24h). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored my above signature. If you are requesting unblock you should preserve all the records of the blocking process. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

My block has expired but I am stll blocked.Z07x10 (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has not expired yet. The times are UTC, meaning that you'll have to convert them to your own timezone. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am UTC time zone but they obviously don't factor in DST.Z07x10 (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UTC doesn't have DST. The UK has (just like almost everyone else), but not UTC. Thomas.W ^{talk to me}

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Z07x10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

ip address (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

autoblock message

Blocking administrator: blocking admin (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Procedural decline: Block has expired Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Z07x10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

24 hrs has expired. Z07x10 (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: Block has expired Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Z07x10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was the only person involved who actually took the issue to dispute resolution. The other parties and admins were more concerned with merely edit warring and trying to get people blocked. So if I didn't follow the rules, how come I'm the only person in this dispute who took the matter to dispute resolution?

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: Block has expired Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Z07x10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block was unjustified. I was merely enforcing an earlier consensus until a new one was reached. The other user - McSly - was aware of the 3RR rule so he made changes instead of reverts and therefore didn't get flagged leaving me as the one taking the flak. This is simply bad policy. I have taken out a dispute resolution and taken great lengths to explain and point out the history of the consensus on the individual admin's talk pages and the admin notice board and have taken out a dispute resolution http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eurofighter_Typhoon. I requested that the page not be changed, leaving the earlier consensus in tact, as McSly's changes had no consensus, but admins ignored this and continued blindly throwing their weight round. Furthermore I explained all this on the admin page but it was then deleted by admins. My contributions to wiki always attempt to be sound, accurate and provide good sources without bias, e.g.: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/GQM-163_Coyote http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Coyote_Fact.pdf http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/BGM-71_TOW http://www.americanordnance.com/pdf/Tow.pdf http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin http://www.americanordnance.com/pdf/Javelin.pdf http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/ The administration and policy is disgraceful and allows users like McSly to cleverly work around them before admins blindly march in and deface pages in a way that doesn't represent consensus. If this block isn't lifted you'll have no problems with me edit-warring again because I simply won't contribute at all and point out wikipedia to other internet users for what it really is. A few people controlling information and a battle of who can exploit flawed policy the best.Z07x10 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As anticipated below. Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith have no place in an unblock request no matter how right you may be. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Have you even thought about reading WP:GAB, WP:AAB and WP:NOTTHEM before composing the above? You're basically guranteeing your unblock request be declined, which is only going to piss you off even more ... and then you'll make more poor interpretations of policy ES &L 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it and it's deliberately restrictive in the reasons you can give. Basically most of them say "promise not to do it again." So basically you can't give an account of what happened and resolve the actual dynamics of policy implementation that causes this kind of problem. After 3 reverts the automatic result should be that the matter goes to dispute resolution, not that an admin comes marching in blindly, automatically taking the other side regardless of facts, and acting in a way that's deliberately intended to piss people off, e.g. Thomas W. I made every attempt to discuss the matter with him on his talk page but rather than look into it, he acted like a monkey and took a hardline position on reversing the edit.Z07x10 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that I'm not an admin, just a hardworking editor who lives by the rules here, and tries to make sure others also do that. Within the limits set by the rules of WP. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rules on edit-warring are pretty clear - the real fact of the matter is WP:BRD is more the direction you need to go. WP:CONSENSUS is far more powerful than anything else on this project - if you make a change, and 1 person dislikes it, you have to stop. If you make a change twice, and 2 people both dislike it, then yuo REALLY have to stop right away before going any further. There are no excuses for WP:EW that seem to apply in this case. As such, the block appears appropriate, IMHO - unfortunate, but appropriate. So yes, you broke the clear policy - no excuses are permitted, so, becoming unblocked means you have to acknowledge that you broke the rules that you AGREED to when you signed up to this site. Yes, it means you have to agree not to do it again. You'll have a hard time changing WP:EW since it's key to the existence of this project, but like everything else, you can propose those changes until new WP:CONSENSUS is reached ES &L 16:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's all well and good but a consensus was reached by 2 contributors and an admin earlier in the discussion. Then McSly edit-warred sometime later on his own (twice). So why didn't he follow the rules? All 3 of us questioned him and told him we were in consensus (myself, Julian H and Bushranger). He then took a break and came back selling the same crap so I didn't see why I needed any other authorisation to simply revert his changes and re-state the previous reasons and consensus. The other users reverting on his side were admins attracted by the 3RR flag which, being new, I was foolish enough to raise, whereas McSly just made edits with the same net effect. I don't believe I've done anything wrong and think that policy has failed and admins have acted blindly and inappropriately. As regards rules, I'm sorry but I work as well as contributing, so I really don't have the time to play lawyer but did work to a consensus in the initial instance.

::: Usually when someone quotes wikipedia people just laugh anyway, so meh, looks like I'll be joining them.Z07x10 (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't give a damn Thomas. Go have lots of fun in your fact manipulating fantasy world.Z07x10 (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wikipedia is Crap

1. Admins do nothing until a 3 revert flag appears. You can edit-war as much as you like as long as you don't revert and you'll go undetected.

2. Then admins rush in and unite against whoever triggered the 3 reverts regardless of the facts or history of the dispute.

3. Then the admins take turns at reverting in support of each other, based on nothing other than the fact that another admin is being questioned. Then they go crying to the admin noticeboards and say, "you reverted the changes of several different users" - all of which were admins.

Bots could do the job the way they do it.

Users to watch for:

Dbrodbeck, McSly - they are French and have a vested, undisclosed interest in promoting the Rafale on English wikipedia regardless of the fact that they are French. This is why the maximum speed of the Eurofighter is listed as Mach 1.8 on French wiki but is listed as 2.35 on German wiki and was listed as 2.35 on English wiki too until they defaced it.

More typical comments from admins:

"The entire latest section on his talk page, added after he was blocked for edit-warring, clearly shows that he needs a long rest from WP. Time he could spend gaining competence." - Thomas W

Dear Wikipedia, this admin has spent the entire last 24 hours devoted to ignoring the history of change dispute that I pointed out to him several times after he was rudely awoken from his slumber by a 3RR flag. Time could be spent replacing him with a bot.

It's nice to see an encyclopedia admin so focused on trying to get a user banned instead of finding out the facts. Exactly the kind of admin Wikipedia needs don't you think? We await to see whether site control will provide this ethernet nazi with his orgasm. My guess is probably.

Feel free to leave your own comments/experiences.Z07x10 (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any evidence of a conflict of interest for either me or McSly please post at WP:COIN. If not, please remove this. Oh and had you clicked on my user page you would see that I am not French actually, I am Canadian. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I do. McSly is listed as French mother tongue, so why is he interfering with English Wikipedia? Is it any coincidence that French Wikipedia just happens to quote the Eurofighter at Mach 1.8, a figure that only one source specifies, without conditions? Is it coincidence that he is active on the French Eurofighter page? http://fr.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&action=history

Vested interest.

I guess in Austria when they state 2,495kph at 10,975m, the temperature must have been 27degC at >36,000ft to explain McSly's position..... or they're lying.Z07x10 (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think one's mother tongue is an issue. If you consider this a conflict of interest there is a place to go, and that would be appropriate (WP:COIN). I think you will need much more than what language someone speaks though. You should read up on WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does someone whose mother tongue is French have to avoid the English version of this project? My first language is not English, so should I avoid it? Most Europeans are extremely fluent in their home language, English, and typically at least one other. And maybe I need to avoid the article on Maple syrup or ice hockey because I'm Canadian, and therefore must have some conflict of interest? ES &L 20:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does French Wikipedia state Mach 1.8 for Typhoon maximum speed completely out of whack with all other national Wikipedias? And why is McSly on English Wikipedia investing great effort into campaigning for the value to be changed down from Mach 2.35 to 2.0, yet he isn't on French Wikipedia (his mother tongue) asking for it to be moved up from '1.8' to '2.0'. Most genuine users would have started with their mother tongue wikipedia and righted that first before seeking changes on international wikipedia. But he doesn't because the lower the value the better from his perspective. What's actually 'right' has nothing to do with it. The bias is there plain and simple, the guy has no integrity, I stand by my judgement.Z07x10 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh LMFAO! He's literally just done it - http://fr.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&action=history. Sneaky SOB covering his tracks.Z07x10 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't understand French. What McSly removed on the French WP was text about the Typhoon being restricted to Mach 1.8 in British service to save the engines. And the reason he removed the text was that it wasn't supported by the source (hence the edit summary: "la source ne dit plus ca"). So the French WP did not say that the maximum speed of the Typhoon is Mach 1.8, as you have claimed. But then why would you have gotten that right when you haven't gotten anything else right? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://fr.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&action=history

"September 23, 2013 at 22:34 McSly ( talk | contributions ) . . (31,551 bytes) (65) . . (Change of maximum speed with source) ( cancel | thank ) "Z07x10 (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make futher personal attacks on other editors as you have made above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to remove active block notices and/or declined unblock requests while a block is active; please do not blank your page again or you may have your talk page access revoked. Wikipedia cannot "delete your account"; a courtesy vanishing may be possible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Z07x10, you may be blocked from editing. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the facts I've presented, dispute them rather than cowering behind regulations. This is so typical of the cowardly behaviour exercised by admin on Wikipedia. I took out a Dispute Resolution and am now blocked from taking part in it. I was the one who took out the dispute resolution whilst every other party was still focused on one-up-manship and somehow I am the one penalised. I'm sure you can see why I think this site is shit. It's all about censorship and selection of facts by elite clans who know relatively little about the subject matter. This is why you have a web page of a fighter jet taking specifications from Haynes manual and are commonly regarded as a laughing stock among the wider internet community and true enthusiasts in any relevant subject matter. Furthermore, how is editing MY talk page disruptive?Z07x10 (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC) And the block should now have expired but hasn't because they want to make sure I don't get a say in the Dispute Resolution. Nazis.Z07x10 (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Math is not your strong point. You were blocked at 8:44AM Eastern yesterday. Right now, it's 8:26AM Eastern. Regardless of whether you believe you started DR, you continued your edit-war - and THAT is what got you blocked. You took the low road, and it became necessary to protect the project from your personal behaviour. I recommend you not keep up this battle mentality in 18 minutes, or else you'll find yourself indefinitely blocked, and rightly so. ES &L 12:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a case that the website doesn't factor in DST because the maths was too complicated. I took the low road? Sorry but I don't understand this. I made every effort to communicate the history of the matter to those concerned. McSly knew he was altering a previous consensus:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon "Hello, consensus can and does routinely change when new information and new sources come to view"

So what about the people reciprocating my actions who didn't take out DR (you cannot revert that which hasn't been changed)? What road did they take? I don't understand why I, out of the two protagonists involved, was singled out for abuse and why this previous consensus wasn't the one held until DR by admins. That's clear bias.Z07x10 (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What time is it now?Z07x10 (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While people can be blocked for edit warring without crossing the 3RR line, one thing you need to understand is the 3RR is a bright line which can almost never be crossed. The few exceptions don't include the generalise case of 'I'm right and the other editor is wrong' or 'I was reverting to an older version' or 'the current version doesn't make sense' or even to most extents 'other people support my edit' oranything of that sort. If you've reverted 8 times in a 24 hour period under those circumstances, it doesn't really matter whether people may support your edit, they will have few sympathy for you when you are blocked. Their sympathy will grow even less when you start to make personal attacks, even more so if you personal attacks are just dumb (like calling people Nazis or calling someone who is Canadian 'French' implying they are a French national and not a French Canadian). Ditto if you make other silly comments like suggesting there are such things as 'national wikipedias' (while a language may be A language is a dialect with an army and navy, it's quite clear that the various wikipedias are divided by language not by nationality, and particularly when referring to something like French which givn history is far from restricted to one country). In fact if anything they're likely to be apathetic to you since you actions are distracting from the real issue and risk clouding their 'side' by being associated with someone who is behaving in such a way. Now in some cases multiple parties may be guilty of edit warring (as said even without breaking the 3RR), but if you've managed to do 8R and no one else has broken 3RR, this would generally suggests you're primarily the one who is edit warring and multiple others don't support your edit, whether because they fundamentally disagree with it, or feel it's distracting from the discussion. If immediately after being blocked for that clear cut 3RR violation you come back and start reverting again, that just reenforces the point. Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated over on the policy discussion, it often takes some time for other consensus holders to come to the rescue. It also says on wiki policy that factual consensus is not a democracy, so the simplistic notion of counting reverts and editors is invalid. My comments about the specific user in question pertained to the fact that he'd chosen to come to a wiki page not of his listed mother tongue and change the value down there before going to the page that was of his mother tongue and changing it up there first. The latter of which page, had held the wrong value (inconsistent with every other national wiki page) for years and the user in question had also been an active participant on that page during that time. Only moments after I highlighted this anomaly on my talk page after the block did he rush over there and cover his tracks which, of course, didn't cover his tracks at all. A coincidence? Who knows?Z07x10 (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, and other language versions of Wikipedia are also not reliable sources between projects. It matters little that one language says "5" when another says "4.9999" because you always have to go by what the original source says. Stop throwing red-herrings about other language wiki into the mix - it's a bogus argument. Nevertheless, when you signed up to this PRIVATE website, you agreed to the policies, processes and community nature of this project. You may disagree with some aspects, but until you get consensus somewhere to changes those aspects, you have no authority to over-ride them ES &L 11:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All change requires a motive force. I think how other wiki sites have interpreted the same sources is a perfectly valid way of demonstrating international consensus and if one particular nation states a different value to the rest, and a user of that mother tongue comes to wiki in another language and starts trying to change values down there before changing them up on the mother tongue site (despite being active there) questions must be asked wrt neutrality.

Anyway I would like permission to clear this page now because no constructive discussions are currently active on it.Z07x10 (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're always welcome to WP:ARCHIVE it - blanking it shows you have no desire to actually learn from what others advise you. Considering there's currently a discussion underway to indefinitely block you, I think you'd be wiser to show a far better attitude towards the community norms than blanking ES &L 11:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's community norms and then there's just arguments which are best left to rest. People have been offended by some of the things written here and I've also been offended by their attitudes and policy implementation. None of that is constructive. If you think it's better to leave it here then fine but all I see happening is a prolonged period of mutual contempt, which isn't something particularly worth sustaining. I already have two topics ongoing on the policy page covering the remaining constructive aspects of this discussion. It takes two to edit-war and consensus is not a democracy (for a good reason), so the 3RR is overly simplistic and ineffective. If consensus is abused and work edited people will be offended as they're only human and I've mentioned ways on the policy page that such offence can be avoided by simple policy changes. Suppose Stephen Hawking was contributing on quantum theory, or some world leading expert was contributing to evolution theory and I got together a few people of an unspecified religion to tamper with a consensus on their work which had held for several years, which resulted in a admin blocking them for 3RR. Hopefully you can see how ridiculously inappropriate 3RR would be in this instance.Z07x10 (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Offended"? No - we've dealt with childishly calling people "Nazi's" before - it's funny, that your block took the rather usual route: new user doesn't understand policy, tries to force something, gets blocked, calls people Nazi's. Dumbest series of moves on the planet, really. If we were really offended, you'd still be blocked (or re-blocked) - which may still happen, by the way. The policies have evolved the way they are for a reason: you're not the only one to misunderstand them, and obviously not the only one to make the suggestions you're making - they're perennial, and really, plain old wrong for the most part. You blatantly violated a core policy - you cannot hope to change it after the fact, and your changes would open the door for rather massive abuse by others - not gonna happen. Stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about your behaviour ES &L 14:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're trying to provoke a confrontation by using terms like 'childish' and 'dumbest'. Why not deal with the policy failure that caused the situation and contribute to the discussion on the policy page where everyone can offer an opinion on your opinion, rather than coming to my talk page and prodding me with a stick to see if you can find an excuse to re-block me or something. This conversation is not productive in any way, shape or form. Maybe if people keep making the same suggestions you should take that as a hint.Z07x10 (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the problem: there was no "policy failure" that led to your block - it was one person's single behaviour: yours. You're the one becoming confrontational because you refuse to self-reflect. The longer you believe you were not responsible and try to shift blame onto others or onto "policy failure", the more difficult (and brief) your wikilife will be. The minute you open your eyes to that reality, the more productive this discussion will be. However, one can lead a horse to water - and even stuff his muzzle into the brook - but clearly, drinking is not always their forté ES &L 08:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if something's designed to fail then the design itself will be a resounding success. There were absolutely no other people involved in this whatsoever, the pages I reverted were reverting/editing themselves. As said previously, this debate is no longer constructive. Would I do things differently in future? Probably. Do I believe I was wrong? No. Is the policy bad? Yes.Z07x10 (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your new edits on Eurofighter Typhoon

Hello. I have reverted your latest changes on Eurofighter Typhoon, not because of being against them per se, but because there is a current case at the dispute resolution board, and a current discussion on the talk page of the article. So until you get a consensus that supports your edits, on the talk page and/or at the dispute resolution board, you should stay away from the article. And don't start a new edit war over this, because you know what the outcome of that would be. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page now reads exactly as it did before 'Mach 2.35' was added in the first place. That is clearly the place where we should return to. It is verifiable in the edit history I'm sure. Furthermore the figure of 2,125kph has no source. If it has then please show it.Z07x10 (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Air Force quote a maximum speed of 'Mach 1.8' whilst Eurofighter themselves quote 'Mach 1.8' http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhooneurofighter.cfm, http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/swing-role/air-superiority/beyond-visual-range.html. Where are you getting Mach 2.35 from ? Nick (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. Eurofighter themselves quote Mach 2.0+ http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/technicaldata.html. EADS quote 2.0+. http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html The Austrian Airforce quote 2,495kph at 10,975m. http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml

The speed of sound varies with altitude:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Speed_of_sound http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg

At 11,000m it is ~295m/s which can also be calculated by sqrt(Gamma * R * T) = sqrt(1.4*287*216.65) = 295m/s = 1062kph ......([295/1000]*3600) = 1062

2495/1062 = 2.35

2495kph is about 1550mph. BAE SYSTEMS quote '1521mph'. http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon

Airpower Austria also show that Mach 2.0+ is achievable across a very broad range of altitudes. http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm. For comparison here is a MiG-29 flight envelope (other flight envelopes are also posted at the dispute page). http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4430/l6mh.png

It is common for initial information relesases to say 'Mach 2+' or 'Mach 2 class' even when speed well over that can be achieved in certain configurations and this figure no doubt propagated to various sources. Lockheed also quote Mach 2 class for F-22. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html

Mach 1.8 as quoted by the RAF is probably an operating limit used to increase MTBO (Mean Time Between Overhaul) and reduce operating costs or it could be a speed with a specific stores configuration, e.g. drop tanks etc.

There is currently a debate on the issue here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eurofighter_Typhoon

Disruptive editing

Z07x10 you have continued to edit war at Eurofighter Typhoon as soon as the block had ended, this is clearly disruptive behaviour. It doesnt matter that you think you are right but continually changing the article is not the way forward. I have blocked the article from editing to stop the edit warring but note I have protected it as is and this may not be the correct version. Please discuss this matter on the talk page and come to a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MilbourneOne, I returned the article to how it stood before I made the Mach 2.35 change a couple of months back. McSly had added a source written in 1994 (9 years before Eurofighter in-service date) from Haynes which is clearly out-of-date/unreliable and added an unsourced kph/mph speed calculated from a Mach number from one of his sources and the altitude from my source (that he discounted). I think the state you have protected it in is suitable until DR comes to a close.Z07x10 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter - coming off a block for EW and returning to the same article to make the same edit is considered a continuation of the same edit war, and shows you did not "learn to modify your behaviour" - you can be re-blocked for a single edit to that article, if it is indeed a continuation ES &L 19:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ESL, I did not make the same edit, I changed it back to what it read before my 'Mach 2.35 edit' that was disputed and removed an unreliable source. Certain protagonists had seized the opportunity to distort the specification completely and I hope that they were reprimanded for making edits during an active Dispute Resolution process that they should have been the ones to commence. I've started a topic over in the Policy section regarding Primary and Secondary sources and the 3R rule and its implementation. My views seem to strike a chord with some. If the first admin to pull McSly for edit warring (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:McSly#Typhoon_edit_warringhttp://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:McSly#Typhoon_edit_warring) had taken the appropriate measures demonstrated by MilborneOne to freeze the article until DR, this whole unfortunate incident would have been avoided.Z07x10 (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did the equivalent of the same edit/edits that you had performed that led to the block. If I was logged into my admin account, I would have no choice but to have re-blocked you as per the escalating nature of blocks. You pretend to be performing DR, but you're not - you're charging like a bull in a china shop, and the battleground behaviour is not appropriate. YOU are 100% to blame for your behaviour - you need to recognize that ES &L 20:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you repeatedly blame everything on McSly? You're the one who was edit warring (eight reverts in less than 24h), you're the one who has repeatedly hurled abuse/personal attacks on everyone (calling people nazis and a lot of other things), and so on. Not McSly. So stop trying to shift the blame. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice he's been very quiet today Thomas. Here's why: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:McSly#Typhoon_edit_warring. Chronologically the edit-warring started with him.Z07x10 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, stop blaming McSly for everything. He stopped edit-warring when he was warned because that's the smart thing to do, while you just kept going, and got blocked. Which is not very smart. It's as simple as that. Besides, if I were him I'd probably just sit it out for a while, waiting for you to get yourself blocked again, possibly for good. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He shouldn't have started making changes in the first place when he was told that they were disputed by 3 people on:

4th September, 14th September and 21st September

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon

And you may as well stop spamming my talk page now thanks. Your efforts in trying to extend my block were noted and certain inferences drawn, none of them good. I think it best that we say very little to each other from now on.Z07x10 (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning re Eurofighter Typhoon

I assumed good faith by removing the protection from the article (and allow others to edit areas other than maximum speed) but you started editing the same area again, note that any non-consensus edit to the speed area will be seen as distruptive editing. Please gain consensus for any edits involving speed or you may gain a topic ban or we will remove your editing privilages, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I put this to DRN but the process just seemed to get archived. No valid arguments were brought forward by any of the protagonists. Julian H got an official response on the Austrian figures from :Eurofighter.com confirming that it was possible dependent on configuration. This response was made available to all participants. The discussion concluded with McSly's argument comprehensively defeated based on the Eurofighter.com confirmation of the specific Austrian figures and explanation of what they referred to as 'rounded' figures from elsewhere.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_78#Eurofighter_Typhoon

"...the Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics) – which is why we quote Mach 2.0+. In terms of others stating Mach 2.0 – this is a ‘rounded’ figure..."

Unless we have an official performance test that disputes the position of Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH on an Airforce's figures then all counter protagonists and nay-sayers should really be thrown in with the flat-earthers and simply ignored. I'm sorry if that seems arrogant but you have to draw the line somewhere with all this BS. You can't have people blocking edits containing officially-verified information based solely on the fact that they don't like it.Z07x10 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that any block would be for disruption and behaviour not for the contents of any edit, you need to agree any change in content on the article talk page, it doesnt matter that it is "offically-verified" information it still needs to be agreed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well with all respect, that's damn stupid. If DRNs get archived and there is official verification of a fact previously stated by another official source then what is there to talk about? Can someone just obstinately block changes based on zero logic?Z07x10 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and it most certainly is NOT an ArbCom issue. ES &L 23:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the process now then? You could have made just about all these processes a million times simpler with a simple forums board approach.Z07x10 (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the day that you become willing to be flexible, there are still steps in WP:DR. It is you who are drawing a line in the sand and refusing to budge. Nothing on Wikipedia will "work" if your goal is to have specific wording come hell or high water. You are the sole person being anti-community right now, and you're simply spinning your wheels and pissing off the people who actually could be co-contributors. Yes, this means that in many cases WP:CONSENSUS trumps everything else. IIRD, you've even gone so far as to try and include info you supposedly obtained directly from the company, but I might be wrong on that. Let me be blunt: your behaviour has pretty much ensured that nothing you want will ever be included. Your most recent attempt to have ArbCom decide (as if they were a parent figure) was absolute proof of the battle mentality you have. Step back. Why is it so damned important that this one piece of information (that has many sourced that contradict it) is so important to you? Is it actually a big deal in the long run? You're fighting a useless battle in a trench on a piece of land that isn't worth holding. Is there a way of neutrally wording it: "...has a verified maximum speed of X, although there have been unverified claims of Y(insert your valid refs here)". Only say it once. Don't include it in the article more than once. Make sure your refs are airtight. Propose it on the talkpage, and DON'T have a hissy fit or be combative. ES &L 10:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of my pet peeves about Wikipedia. If you want to criticise a piece of information I've added/suggested specifically then just say it rather than hiding behind a link to a section of Wiki policy. This matter of importance has also been raised by others and I simply turned the question back round. Why is it so important for them to block it? I have included good new information to several artcles, e.g. see my updates to the SM-3 article. For some reason I was able to make those changes based on similar quality information without a camp of permanent article baby-sitters trying to rape me. Why is that I wonder? I guess we're all human, when we come up against arbitrary, poorly reasoned resistance, we push harder. Perhaps you should also read the DRN wrt your more neutral suggestion:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_78#Eurofighter_Typhoon

"In light of the above, what about an edit saying:

"Mach 2+ (Mach 2.35 - 2,495kph at 10,975m - is possible depending on configuration) [Austrian Airforce source][EADS source][Eurofighter.com Note**]"

-**Note reads " 'The Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics)' - Eurofighter.com"."

I've also suggested and tried just adding the Mach 2.35 as an [N]-style note simply pointing out that 2,495kph at 10,975m calculates as Mach 2.35 at ISA. I tried this after editing was restored. All arbitrarily rejected. E.g. after where the article says (2,495kph at 10,975m) I added '[N9]' where in the notes N9 provides the calculation for Mach 2.35 with a link to the 'Speed of Sound article'. If my behaviour seems odd it's because I'm seriously trying to work out the motives and agendas behind the resistance.Z07x10 (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and why don't you start thinking about everyone else's attempts to work out the motives and agendas behind your resistance? You have not convinced the community to change its WP:CONSENSUS - so stop. Period. End of sentence. Until you have better refs and a better argument, and have learned to get along with people, drop the fricking stick and back away. Start to show quality and community. Seriously, your inability to work within Wikipedia norms has almost led to some form of ban ... that's the stupidest thing, ever. ES &L 12:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm not actually the one exercising resistance to the inclusion of new information. I'm the one trying to progress. Please look-up the meaning of words before using them. Frankly I don't much care about a ban, it would save me from an inexorable waste of my time in trying to improve a site that's commonly regarded as a laughing point whenever it's quoted as a source. Furthermore the fact you have a moderator (EdJohnston) who chose to bring a discipline issue into an arbitration request raised to discuss article facts is indicative of the lack of integrity manifest throughout the site.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Z07x10 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discipline issue, which can itself be debated, has absolutely no relevance to an arbitration about article facts. What's also clear is the 2:1-sided nature of EdJohnston's comments as he fails to mentions that the other party was also warned regarding the 3RR rule, following which he called his buddies to change the previously held consensus without gaining a new consensus on the talk page. He has also been accused of bias elsewhere:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:McSly#Typhoon_edit_warring

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:McSly#Why_do_you_insist_on_making_an_article_MORE_biased.3F

What's also clear in the above is his strong alliance with Drodbeck, who's been a key protagonist in the Typhoon debate. You are running a mafia not a community, don't kid yourself.Z07x10 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia? Thanks for proving my point. It's called WP:CONSENSUS. If you don't have the interpersonal skills to change people's minds, then that's YOUR fault, not theirs. You need to stop, and rethink your a) goal (which is pretty minor in the long run) and b) interaction style (which is going to get you blocked). You feel you hold the WP:TRUTH ... but the community right now disagrees. That doesn't meaning run to daddy to get daddy to impose it ... that means go and do a far better job in a) researching, and b) getting along with people. A few months from now, once you have regained the trust of people, do it RIGHT with appropriate refs, etc. The article will still be here 3 months from now. You might not be, if you continue down this path. ES &L 13:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making your responses in other people's statements. Those subsections are for their comment only, not yours. If you don't understand what an "indef(inite block from the project" is, then I'm a little surprised. If you want to question someone's statement, you return to your OWN section, and start a new line like this:

@ThePersonsUserName ... here is my question'

(note: it's indented by one using :)

Do not edit any other person's section ES &L 13:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you wanted to have content based on opinions rather than facts you should have started a Talk Show instead. You tell someone to start a DRN process, so they oblige, and go to great personal lengths to put a point across, then the DRN is archived with no outcome - how amazingly productive and functional. So what immensely bureaucratic process must I now begin to resolve the issue?Z07x10 (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was archived because your point was not well-enough accepted to become the new consensus. Live with it, for now ... as I have already said a half-dozen times. You didn't get your way this time - so be it. ES &L 15:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "what immensely bureaucratic process must I now begin to resolve the issue". The issue has already been resolved. Consensus was against you, or to put it bluntly you lost. So learn to live with it, and stop flogging a dead horse. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by 'dead horse' you mean Wikipedia, then okay. I will stop flogging this thoroughly dead quadruped. Enjoy your Talk Show.Z07x10 (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wetten Das? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What?.Z07x10 (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(yes, it's not really that "intellectual"). Great to see your humour is still so savoury... (I carefully steered clear of the Jade Goody Marmite joke.) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame you didn't steer clear of her school too.Z07x10 (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is no suggestion in her article that she ever went to school. I guess folks can draw their own conclusions, sob. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my comment. No doubt if she was still alive you'd expect people to reach a consensus with her on Wikipedia too.Z07x10 (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! But of course. Or else we'd just have to keep her locked in the diary room. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could ban people who revert her changes more than 3 times.Z07x10 (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

um, same thing really? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, when you have people who can't grasp the difference between a secondary source and someone reprinting old information from a primary source.Z07x10 (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm Dbrodbeck. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:McSly that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. You've been warned about this before. Please don't do this again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.Z07x10 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case request

The arbitration request involving you has been declined. The comments left at the request may be helpful for proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 19:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Eurofighter Typhoon". 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 7 November 2013.

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. 12:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps time to drop the stick

Appreciate that you are frustrated that you cant gain consensus for your change on Eurofighter Typhoon but at some point you need to drop the stick rather than continue raising the point on different discussion boards. It is clear that if you carry on you are at risk of being topic banned from Typhoon discussions or having your editing rights removed. You clearly have a passion for the subject but with your knowledge we have a lot of articles that could do with expansion and improvement. Perhaps consider moving on to different subjects, you may not believe it we actually dont like to loose good editors. So have a think about it and decide are you going to help improve the encyclopedia or continue to be disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I probably will but for the record it's absolutely disgraceful that people involved in a so-called 'consensus' can simply disagree by a shake of the head without offering any counter-points or reasoned debate against the case you've submitted and furthermore act to antagonise people during an RFC process in a deliberate attempt to derail constructive discussion on the issue by repeatedly submitting comments that don't follow the discussion - talking particularly about Thomas W. If this really is what constitutes a consensus then the consensus article should be re-written to state that it is literally just a vote without any of the tippy-toey BS that currently confuses people into thinking it's about a logical discussion on the evidence available.Z07x10 (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is a logical discussion based on all available evidence, but consensus against your proposal, based on logical arguments, was reached a long time (and many discussion boards) ago. Everything after that has been an endless repetition, and most of us see no reason to repeat all the arguments against your proposal every time you try to start the discussion all over again. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original consensus was acquired by misrepresenting reprints of primary sources as secondary sources. Quite simply, I had the wool pulled over my eyes because I hadn't thoroughly read the policy articles. The original arguments are therefore null and void. The only true originating sources of new information state 2+ and 2495kph@10,975m, which is 2.35 at ISA, and that has been confirmed as possible by the other originating source. The entire counter-argument was based on a few people trying to pass off stuff like 'Haynes Manual' as secondary sources because they had rounded and reprinted data from primary sources. We almost ended up with Haynes Manual as a listed reference in the article only for my intervention. If you've got any valid counter-points I'm all ears. So far all I've heard is, "you don't have consensus" and various unexplained comments about "cherry picking sources" - yeah I "cherry-picked" the only sources of original information.Z07x10 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon, 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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

May 2014

Hello, I'm Scarlettail. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Zoophilia and the law because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Scarlettail (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eurofighter Typhoon may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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.

9K38 Igla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to SALH

FIM-92 Stinger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to SALH

Starstreak (missile) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to SALH

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Your recent editing history at Eurofighter Typhoon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. Thomas.W ^talk 16:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already opened a discussion on the talk page, but nobody has responded. I think several pictures can be found anywhere showing the extra 2 hardpoints unless you can explain what else they are? There are no reliable sources giving a definitive view on the number of hardpoints. What are the other 2 points at the rear if not hardpoints? I thought the edit was a no-brainer?Z07x10 (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to discuss. Pictures are primary sources and do not trump the secondary sources in the article. Your personal interpretation of the image in question, claiming to see hard points that noone else can see, also makes it original research, which is expressly not allowed. So just stop it. Thomas.W ^talk 16:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? What are the points inside and rear of the drop tanks if not hardpoints? Random pylons. If you can give me a sensible explanation then fair enough. There are clearly 4 wing points on each wing besides the one the pylon is on.

Z07x10 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "pictures are primary sources and do not trump secondary sources" and "original research" was it that you didn't understand? Thomas.W ^talk 17:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah some people absolutely love overplaying that card. You know damn well you're using it out of context and frankly there's no way you should be a moderator on here. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

"reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia" "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person" A picture is pretty straightforward.Z07x10 (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot a very important part of it: reliable primary sources may be used if there are no secondary sources available. But in this case there are secondary sources, meaning that your primary source can not be used. In addition to that your interpretation of the picture is original research, and original research is never allowed. Thomas.W ^talk 17:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No there aren't, typhoon starstreak is an unreliable tertiary source and Jane's only states the maximum carriage weight. There are no secondary sources on hardpoints.Z07x10 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not WP:RS

Hi there. Would you care to self-revert as per the advice here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Images. Thank you. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imjin River Casaulties

Hello, Mr. Z:

First of all, thank you for your efforts in improve the article. If it were not for your efforts to challenge my edits, I would never have double checked my handy work on the page from three years ago, and a lot of serious errors made by me would not be caught.

As for the topic of Chinese causalities, first of all and on personal opinion basis, I do agree with your judgement that the Chinese 19th Army Group probably suffered somewhere between 15,000 to 30,000 losses during the battle, based on my knowledge of how Chinese official history themselves admitted that the casualties has been heavy, if not severe. However, per WP:OR policy, I cannot put personal opinion on the article until I can find a source that explicitly stated "Chinese 19th Army Group suffered more than 20,000 losses during the battle," and as an member of Wikipedia, I have to uphold such policy on the article even if I personally agree with your judgement. Here is the deal: if you can find a sources that explicitly stated "Chinese 19th Army Group suffered more than 20,000 losses during the battle," then I will not block that number on the article any further. Jim101 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I take it the fact that the existing excerpt says 'may have been even more' instead of 'were estimated to be in excess of' that's a problem?

Short answer: yes. "may have been even more" is the only way to describe the current situation without breaking WP:OR

Long answer: the excerpt [b] is not a cited book passage, but an summary of cross referencing British/Chinese/South Korean official histories on the matter. This is what we do know given each sides' POVs.

1) The most authoritative estimate on Chinese casualties is the official British estimate of 10,000 Chinese losses during the battle. however, British histories also disclaimed that this estimate is only about the total losses of Chinese 63rd Army. See citation [20].

2) South Korean records indicated that it is highly unlikely that the 63rd Army suffered around 50% casualties or more, given the same unit was operating as an combat effective unit and attacked ROK 6th Division in strength during May 1951. Implication is that any sources stating that Chinese 63rd Army alone suffer 15,000+ losses or higher automatically falls into WP:REDFLAG territory. See citation [19].

3) Chinese records indicated that aside from 63rd Army, the 64th and 65th Army was also involved in attacking the British 29th Brigade, and both 64th and 65th Army suffered heavy losses during the operation. See citation [21].

4) The accuracy of the official British estimate is unclear, since estimates are technically "guesses" and Chinese never released any numbers to affirm or refute the British claim.

As such, I believe citing the official British estimate of ~10,000 with the disclaimer that This is the estimated casualties suffered by the Chinese 63rd Army alone. Chinese 19th Army Group's total casualties may be significantly higher is the only way to sort out the historiography mess between South Korean, Chinese and British histories while not breaking any WP:OR or WP:NPOV rules. However, I do believe there are enough evidence to support a 10,000+ number to further clarify the situation. But, the current situation is that unless I have have a source that explicitly state what the the total casualty is between Chinese 63rd, 64th and 65th Army during the battle (a.k.a, the entire 19th Army group), we are stuck with the 10,000 with a big disclaimer plastered over it. Jim101 (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that the 63rd Army suffered heavy losses but then extra 'volunteers' were drafted in or pooled from other units. The text later on in the article does mention the 19th Army being sent in to support the 63rd Army. The other odd thing here is, why they were sent in support if the casualties weren't as high as mentioned?

Ref. 21 - Chinese Military Science Academy 2000, p. 318, Translation reads: "At the same time, the 19th Army Group's second echelon, composed of two divisions from the 65th Army, had already crossed the Imjin river, ready to assist the 63rd Army in eliminating the British 29th Brigade. But with the 64th Army blocked in a tiny 20 km2 (4,900 acres) of land on the southern bank of the Imjin river [due to ROK 1st Infantry Division's defense], five squeezed divisions [from 64th and 65th Army] suffered heavily under artillery and aerial bombardment, resulting in heavy casualties and delays in the battle plan to eliminate the British 29th Brigade".Z07x10 (talk)

Could be, but cite 19 technically ruled out the possibility when probing the matter. As for why 65th Army was sent in reinforcement, the official Chinese history (Chinese Military Science Academy 2000, p. 313) states that before the battle, it was decided that the 63rd Army was to act as cannon fodder for the 29th brigade with a frontal assault while the 65th Army was to roll up the left flank of 29th brigade and finish it off after the Chinese 64th Army open an hole in ROK 1st Infantry Division's defense (although British histories tend to heavily implies, though not directly claim, that it was the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers that stopped the 64th and 65th Army in ROK 1st Division's place). So that rule out the possibility that 65th was a direct replacement for 63rd Army on the line. Anyway, juggling between Chinese/South Korean/British POVs without breaking Wiki rules on this matter is a highly complex since none of the POV actually bothered to consult with each other before presenting the the whole story of Battle of the Imjin River. Jim101 (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 19 doesn't seen to refute this at all. It's clear that the 63rd Army weren't the only ones to suffer losses amidst the Chinese ranks.Z07x10 (talk)

Cite 19 does explicitly refute the notion that 63rd Army was crippled in the aftermath of the battle. It will be impossible to reconcile 63rd Army suffering 70% losses and not being crippled without resorting to WP:OR, especially when an official 10,000 number is staring right at us. Anyway, the key point here is to find a source that is informed enough to not explicitly state "63rd Army alone suffered 20,000+ losses during the Battle of the Imjin River." Once that source is found, we can bypass all NPOV constraints put any number we want. Hell, even a source that just casually mentions "Chinese lost more than 20,000 man during the Imjin River battle" without any mentions of the 63rd Army would be good enough for me. Jim101 (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even ignoring the 63rd Army losses entirely and taking '10,000' as read, there were clearly other protagonists who 'may have suffered even more losses', as stated in all the references. E.g. the 19th, 64th and 65th Army.Z07x10 (talk)

I agree with you but I need sources that agrees with us. So far during my entire research I have not found a source that explicitly stated "entire Chinese forces suffered 20,000 losses" while smart enough not to drag 63rd Army into the discussion. Help me find this source. Jim101 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found a source that can push the total Chinese casualties to 15,000+. If you can find a better source, please let me know. Jim101 (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim. One thing though, the excerpt in your source says '30,000'?Z07x10 (talk)

30,000 is the Chinese losses during the entire Chinese April offensive. Battle of the Imjin River is just one sector in the Chinese April Offensive. However, the excerpt did state that most of 30,000 is coming from Battle of the Imjin River, hence 15,000+. Jim101 (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of integrated circuit manufacturers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ARM. 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) 09:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eurofighter Typhoon 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Caution for removing a comment/post made by Mztourist on the talk page. Thomas.W ^talk 12:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't remove it I was mid-edit on the Talk page.Z07x10 (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made two separate edits: in the first edit you removed Mztourist's comment, and in the second edit you added your own post, saving the changes you made both after your first edit and after your second edit. Which shows that it was no accident. Thomas.W ^talk 12:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I made one edit to add my text and it didn't appear, so I hit back and added it again. I assure you there was no deliberate attempt to delete anything he said because I'm quite able to counter it myself. I suggest the confusion is down to slightly dodgy site functioning.Z07x10 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it actually did the same thing again and I had to add Mzourist's comments back manually. The problem comes when two people edit at once. It automatically loses what you type if someone else posts and then you go back to copy you post to add it again, but it loses what they typed. It's really not my fault, site functionality.Z07x10 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eurofighter Typhoon 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 get 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. - BilCat (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC) User:Mztourist - Has also reverted more than 3 times using sock puppet accounts. Home PC, work PC, lap-top, mobile device, proxy servers, all unsigned edits. I've had the same problem with him before. I agreed my edits with User:Fnlayson. I don't see how reverting unsigned edits should even count under 3RR.Z07x10 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation that I have socked is complete fabrication. I intend to report Z07x10 for edit warring Mztourist (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are your unsigned edits from other IP addresses. This BS is what's wrong with wikipedia. Just because the people who agreed my edits aren't here, I get hit with a 3RR.Z07x10 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring applies to all edits that aren't explicitly reverting vandalism or BLP violations, neither of which apply here. You'll have the chance to defend your edits when you're reported for 3RR violations. I'm not an admin, and thus I can't block you anyway, so all I'm doing is issuing the warning. As to your sock claims, you really shouldn't make such claims without stong evidence. If you really think this is the case, file a sock report, fet's the sysops sort that out. - BilCat (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone besides the NSA provide strong evidence. All I know is that whenever Mzourist edit wars, accounts come out of the wood-work. The history also show that he 3RR'd first:

1. (cur | prev) 12:14, 4 June 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (167,591 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features) (undo | thank) 2. (cur | prev) 12:13, 4 June 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,597 bytes) (-252)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: Z07x10 stop blaming me for edits I didn't do and stop adding your OR!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:10, 4 June 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,849 bytes) (+144)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: Undone further bad faith non-agreed changes of Mzourist.Z07x10 (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) 3. (cur | prev) 12:04, 4 June 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,705 bytes) (-258)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: restored tag and removed OR; Z07x10 I didn't make and bad faith changes IP 86.69.13.240 did make changes while you keepZ07x10 (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned about making accusations of sock puppetry of another before at #Accusations of sock puppetry. Interestingly, it was also about edits to the Typhoon article. Also, the adims will decide MZT is edit warring also, as all filers of 3RR reports have to beware the boomerang - BilCat (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Having looked at the 2013 ANI discussion of your edits you should notice that some of the participants favored an indefinite block of your account. It will be in your interest to reply to the AN3 report and agree to make no further edits to Eurofighter Typhoon that aren't supported by a talk page consensus. Unless you agree to such a concession an admin should issue a lengthy block for your role in the new dispute. Accusing your opponent of using socks is one technique that you have used in both disputes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the evidence shows Mzourist to have breached the 3RR in principle first and made amendments to changes agreed between myself and Fnlayson without talk page discussion.Z07x10 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That might be what you think, but if I were you I wouldn't count on everyone agreeing with it. So just do what EdJohnston said. Thomas.W ^talk 19:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have a DRN out and haven't made any further edits, waiting for the DRN to be answered. It's a shame Mzourist didn't follow policy in this way when he changed Fnlayson's edit made on the 29th May.Z07x10 (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AN3 report has now been closed. You are warned for edit warring and for making unsupported charges of sockpuppetry. If this kind of behavior continues an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE is possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Z07x10, I am an interested bystander. Your interaction with Mztourist is not helpful to the project. For example, you are shouting. I recommend that you stay away from Mztourist's talk page and edits. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no interest in your comments whatsoever. I recommend you mind your own business.Z07x10 (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Badly sourced material on Eurofighter Typhoon

Hello. I have removed some of the material you added since the reference you added is to a blog run by an enthusiast in Italy (http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk), a blog that has nothing whatsoever to do with "Air Forces Monthly", as you seemed to claim, or the UK Armed Forces. I hope it was an honest mistake and not a deliberate attempt to mislead people. Thomas.W ^talk 16:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The blog mentions that it was talked about in AFM.http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/p/eurofighter-typhoon.html

"Air Forces Monthly back then reported:

"AFM understands, however, that the evaluation, which was the first time Typhoon had flown outside Europe (redeploying together with a VC10 air tanker), was a resounding success. Though BAE and Eurofighter will not confirm any ::details, it is believed that the two aircraft (they were RAF T1 fighters) flew 28 missions, totalling 35 flying hours, during the course of which the aircraft convincingly demonstrated its air-to-air capabilities, first ::against a pair of F-16s and then against a package of six F-5S and F-16C/D aircraft. It also demonstrated its ability to 'supercruise' (fly supersonically without reheat), achieving Mach 1.21 on a normal, hot Singapore day."Z07x10 (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the edit back in but I've removed the reference to AFM in the text but added what the blog says in a note. Hope that's okay.Z07x10 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eurofighter Typhoon 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 get 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. - BilCat (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion with Thomas W. on his talk page and removed the bits he considered OR, the rest are just sources. It was a fundamental change because I removed the RCS back calculation. Note these sources are supporting information not verification, which is why I left the 'verification needed' tag.Z07x10 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental deletion?

May I presume safely that the deletion of the material from the Sean Hannity section in this edit was accidental? If it wasn't, please explain. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Err.. yes. I have no idea how that happened, I have absolutely no interest in that discussion, nor do I even know what it's about. Sorry. Is there a bug?Z07x10 (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think there's a bug because I've not seen this before, and if there is it's in the general Wiki software, about which I know absolutely nothing, not DRN. Let's just put it down as an anomaly. Thanks for the clarification. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, except it isn't the first time it's happened to me. Thomas W. also says I've done it before. I'm really not trying to though.Z07x10 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Do you preview your edits before posting them and it doesn't show up in the preview? I'm going to ping my friend Hasteur, who's our tech guru over at DRN, to see if he might have an insight on this. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I can come up with is that there was a lot of text there and it's possible that there might have been an edit conflict that Z07x10 might have overrode. Also it's possible that because they were in different sections the MediaWiki Framework didn't think ahead and possibly acceped Z07's content carte blanche disregarding the different section. TransporterMan You might want to raise it at VP:T or at whatever bug reporting tool the foundation is using for bugs this week (bugzilla, Phabricator, etc) if you think it's a problem. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds extremely likely. In both cases I remember having to override an edit conflict, which shouldn't have happened because I was only editing my own section. Don't know if it's a bug, or just flawed functionality. Thomas.W may also wish to review this as he previously brought it to my attention.Z07x10 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This problem shouldn't happen if you never override an edit conflict. Usually when you get an EC notice you can preserve your new text somewhere, then back out without saving and start the edit over from scratch. It's not really a Mediawiki bug unless you see it happening when there is *no* EC notice. Your edit managed to delete the section following yours, which may have been newly added during the time that you had the article open for editing. This is one of the cases where you 'editing only your own section' can have unwanted side effects. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Per the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, please do not edit your posts after they have been responded to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of editing it before you posted, and I got an edit conflict. Not my fault.Z07x10 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a habit of getting edit conflicts, conflicts that have only ever happened once to me, in spite of racking up an average of well over a thousand edits a month. So don't push your luck... Thomas.W ^talk 19:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, this is a different matter, nothing was deleted, I edited my posted after he had responded. I'm sure a check in the DB will reveal the edit conflicts.Z07x10 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts to the original research noticeboard are very long. Perhaps the edit conflicts occur because you are adding a great deal of length to them as people are responding. I have two suggestions. First, be concise. Second, prepare your posts off-line, in Notepad or Word, and then copy-paste them, so as to avoid the edit conflicts. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

I'm sure you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that you can't copy-paste copyright material into articles like this: [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll try and reword it. EDIT: In factno, I'll just leave the text out, the source is there for people to make of it what they will. I was just trying to avoid someone crying 'synthesis' by being accurate to the source.Z07x10 (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Conflict

I see that other editors are saying that you have accidentally caused problems by pushing edit conflicts. My suggestion is that, if you have an edit conflict, copy your own text, and then back out and edit again. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks.Z07x10 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Mediation Request

I have two comments on your mediation request that seems to be nowhere. First, there may be a problem because the bot may not be able to deal with two requests with the same name. You made a similar request for mediation about the same article a year and a half ago, and it was declined. You may need to follow some special rule at this time. You maybe should request help from User:TransporterMan or another mediator. (Whether the fact that you have requested mediation about the same article twice and gotten nowhere should be a lesson is beyond the scope of this comment.)

Second, I personally have no idea what you hope to gain by requesting mediation. The purpose of mediation is to achieve compromise. There is nothing to compromise on. Either the comparison language is included or it is excluded. I had already suggested that you request help in publishing a neutral Request for Comments, which would get the attention of other editors beyond the ones who already don't want the language included. However, you instead ignored my advice and requested mediation. Do you think that the mediator will push your position through? That isn't how mediation works. I really don't understand what you are trying to gain by requesting mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the mediation bot may have skipped that case due to a different highly-malformed filing in a different case which preceded it. I've contacted the bot operator and am awaiting his reply. At this point, it appears that all the currently-listed (at least as of an hour or so ago) parties are aware of the filing, so the failure to list at the Requests for Mediation page is fairly insignificant. Robert, if you don't consider yourself a party (since you've mostly been doing dispute resolution) and don't intend to continue participating in the dispute as a party, you might weigh in at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eurofighter Typhoon 2#Parties.27 agreement to mediation with an "Abstain" and indicate that. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

Edit warring

You are unbelievable, you are edit warring my comments on the RFC page. Remove all your comments or I go straight to the edit warring noticeboard. Mztourist (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Warning for repeated addition of unreliable sources

I have previously told you that http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk isn't a reliable source, and can't be used as a reference on Wikipedia, but you still keep adding it. So consider this as a formal level-3-warning for repeated deliberate improper sourcing. Don't do it again! Thomas.W ^talk 12:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er no, last time you simply said it wasn't associated with AirForces Monthly. However, oddly enough, they're right, it was quoted in AFM that year.Z07x10 (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I wrote "the reference you added is to a blog run by an enthusiast in Italy", and blogs are not WP:RS and can not be used as references. As for your Air Forces Monthly reference we need month and page number, not just year, so that it can be verified. Which I intend to do, because I no longer trust anything you write. Thomas.W ^talk 12:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this special harass me day or something. Let me help you out with what you wrote - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Z07x10#Badly_sourced_material_on_Eurofighter_Typhoon Z07x10 (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - you need to fix your latest edit to the article because you've made a hash of the bracketing. I'll leave it to you to do since (A) I don't want to get blamed for edit-warring and (B) The persistent harassment by editor cliches over the last months has left me in a position where I don't really wish to contribute to this contrived puddle of horse urine that is Wikipedia anymore.Z07x10 (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility isn't likely to advance your cause, going on for eighteen months, to inserting a comparison paragraph, when there is consensus against insertion of the paragraph (even if there isn't consensus as to a specific reason to exclude the paragraph). Robert McClenon (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave then Mztourist (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to what I wrote myself, just click on "told you" in my warning, and you'll see what I wrote. And it's not harassment, it's enforcing Wikipedia policy. You were close to an indefinite block last year and you're most probably even closer to one now if you keep doing what you're currently doing. Thomas.W ^talk 12:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Talk: Eurofighter Typhoon. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. By changing the wording of the RFC, you not only made it non-neutral, when its original wording was neutral, but, by changing it from asking whether to include the paragraph to whether to exclude it, you rendered the existing !votes meaningless. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question at MedCom

You asked:

Why are people allowed to refuse mediation and then continue to oppose content? That makes no sense whatsoever. The matter should be heard in their absence if they refuse to attend.Z07x10 (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Because mediation is nothing more than a guided and supervised continuation of the discussion on the article talk page and no one is required to participate in such a process any more than they are required to participate in the discussion at the article talk page. In most cases, those who decline mediation (or participation in DRN or Third Opinion) don't try to disturb any consensus reached in those venues. Thirdly, the WP community has always been opposed to any kind of binding content arbitration or mediation process (I presume that you understand that mediation at MEDCOM is not a court to decide content issues and that any result reached there can only be through the consensus of the parties to the mediation) and by freezing out non-participants that makes the mediation process binding at least to them. Having said that, I must say in all candor that I agree to some extent with the sentiment behind your statement and have considered proposing an amendment to the Dispute Resolution Policy which would, in effect, temporarily (during the mediation and for some short period of time afterward, perhaps a month or two) topic ban only on the subject of the dispute, broadly construed, not on the article or any other disputes at the article, any participant in a dispute which is accepted for mediation at DRN or MEDCOM who refuses to participate. I've not actually proposed such an amendment because, based on my observation of other related proposals, I don't think that it would pass. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked per the edit warring complaint

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: ). Not only do you edit war, you fail to cooperate with others in the dispute resolution forums. This is now adding up to a long-term pattern of bad behavior on your part. If there is no way to get you to behave properly at Eurofighter Typhoon an admin may consider issuing a long block, perhaps an indef. You can avoid this by making assurances that you will back away from the dispute. The simplest way to do that is to accept a permanent voluntary ban from Eurofighter Typhoon and its talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop harassing me. It is not my fault that there is a cliche sitting on various articles on this encyclopedia who prevent all content they do not like, regardless of how well sourced it is. Also, it takes two to tango and it is always Mztourist who begins the problem.Z07x10 (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon 2, 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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon 2, 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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Vandalism block request

I have requested that you be permanently blocked for this vandalism: [[2]] Mztourist (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So how come you're following everything I do? How are you able to do that?Z07x10 (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make a similar edit like that again and you will be indefinitely blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was funny though.Z07x10 (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that response, I ask that the block be extended to indefinite. This contributor has disrupted the project long enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually surprised you didn't allege synthesis again. It's not like I'm actually able to edit anything with your cliche around anyway, so what would the actual difference be?Z07x10 (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is clique not cliche. Two very different things. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Indeed if one checks this talk page it is easy to find a large number of personal attacks and bizarre accusations, such as this one [3]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the mention of the bullshit article on French Wikipedia that now states maximum speed as Mach 1.73? Oh yeah and it includes a comparison, that allegedly Wikipedia doesn't do? Double standards much? I note nobody over there harassing them. Basically your project is full of absolute crap that's completely wrong. Why? Because on most technical subjects, most people don't know what they're talking about. Indeed certain facts are so wrong that they're fundamentally no different to vandalism to the eyes of the educated man. http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon Z07x10 (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the French wikipedia? I really don't care about it, and have never edited it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Z07x10, Dbrodbeck clarifed his nationality for you two years ago, remember? Bonne chance à fr.wikipedia. Cela devrait être tout un défi pour vous. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block/topic ban request

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Z07x10 indef block or topic ban requestThank you. Mztourist (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban

Per consensus of the community of Wikipedia editors you have been banned from editing any and all pages of the English language Wikipedia except for this user talk page. This means also that you must not return to editing the English Wikipedia with any other accounts or as an unregistered user. Your access to this talk page may be removed though, if you decide to add abusive content to this page.

You may appeal this ban following the provisions explained here. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you welcomed your ban in the previous edit, I'm assuming that you won't challenge it. I am therefore revoking your access to this page so you can no longer insert personal insults to other editors. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]