User talk:McNeight

Bullying from User:Braaad

Hello,

If Braaad continues to try to push you around, please let me know on my user talk page. I do not care if he (or she) is correct, because I want what is correct to be placed in the article. However, he or she has absolutely no right to try to tell you to keep your comments to yourself. I will watch Braaad to make sure that he or she doesn't continue to make personal attacks.

Regards, Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's continuing with his personal crusade. I'll keep an eye on him for a while, because I'm afraid that he's going to get himself in trouble. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McNeight, may I ask how you know User:braaad is the same as User:68.112.201.90? Grant 23:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree that User:braaad is the same as User:68.112.201.90, now what does it matter if his comments are signed by his IP or his username? Seems to me that his IP is fairly stable so we are able to identify what user it is. Grant 23:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what you said on my talk page doesn't assume good faith. If User:68.112.201.90 gets a temporary ban for violating the 3RR and then uses User:braaad to continue to make edits, I have no problem with banning User:braaad right away. However, if User:braaad doesn't continue to revert the page, especially if he doesn't make any edits to Talk:Civil Air Patrol, then there is no reason to ban User:braaad. I think that assuming he will use the accounts as sock puppets fails to assume good faith, and you should know better than that. Furthermore, you should not ban User:68.112.201.90, get another admin to do it for you, you are too involved in this fight. Grant 23:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Nlu took care of it. Grant 23:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 2005

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Not that I am unsympathetic to your situation since the behavior of the IP is unacceptable, but this isn't simple vandalism, and therefore you really don't want to put yourself in trouble as well. --Nlu 01:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

piper cub series box

Just wanted to let you know that I've converted it from a table and cleaned it up a bit regarding layout. Hope you're fine with it - I think this way it has more similarity to the default style, but still stands out and emphasizes the diversity of the series.

Roadmap looks good, although I'd suggest concentrating on a single list article for the minor models (the various Taylor and Piper -2 versions) and full articles for the more prominent variants. Also, watch out for the military designations - they need to be more specific than HE, which is a disambiguation page. Good work, see you around. ericg ✈ 00:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent about the page move, although it seems like a fine idea. By 'single F-2', though, do you mean only one was built, and that the only difference was the engine? If that's the case, it doesn't deserve a standalone article.

Regarding the size of the box - you could resize the box, sure (just add width: (x)px; to the style="" section), but if you're going to include it in the designation sequence portion of the related content footer, I think it should remain left-aligned. ericg ✈ 01:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Braaad person

Hi McNeight,

Although it was kind of funny, I don't think the tool thing would be exactly helpful to making him stop. I'm considering opening an RFC regarding him, so I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out. Thanks, Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 21:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, RFC time. Can we meet on IRC? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 21:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Server is irc.freenode.net and channel is #wikipedia when you get the chance. Linuxbeak is my nickname, blah blah. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 21:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Braaad & User:68.112.201.90 - 12 December 2005

I believe what you said on my talk page doesn't assume good faith. If User:68.112.201.90 gets a temporary ban for violating the 3RR and then uses User:braaad to continue to make edits, I have no problem with banning User:braaad right away. However, if User:braaad doesn't continue to revert the page, especially if he doesn't make any edits to Talk:Civil Air Patrol, then there is no reason to ban User:braaad. I think that assuming he will use the accounts as sock puppets fails to assume good faith, and you should know better than that. Furthermore, you should not ban User:68.112.201.90, get another admin to do it for you, you are too involved in this fight. Grant 23:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that assuming he will use the accounts as sock puppets fails to assume good faith, and you should know better than that. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Braaad (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McNeight, would it be possible for you not to post on User_talk:68.112.201.90 anymore? I realized you haven't posted there that much, but I'm trying to seperate all parties involved. I think he has agreed to stop removing the signatures with his IP from the CAP talk archives. If we leave him alone he will leave us alone at this point. Grant 17:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help you with an RfC for User:Braaad. He continued to attack you after he had agreed to leave you alone. I will admit he has stuck to the letter of his agreement, not posting on your talk page, but his attacks of you on his talk pages since then are uncalled for. I don't know how to start to take administrative action against him on Wikipedia, do you have any guideline articles saying what we need to do? Grant 22:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Braaad RfC

I made some edits to the RfC, I added a ton of supporting links to show what he was doing. And I signed it of course. Grant 08:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request to add my input on this issue, I would say that since my involvement was minor, I won't weigh in until others have. BTW, I was a CAP cadet (Mitchell and Earhart) back in the early 1970's. --rogerd 17:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism watch

You just dropped a vandalism template at User talk:156.63.253.3. I've never seen that template before. Could you drop me a link to it? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your input on AfD is requested

I have entered an AfD for the article Chair force. I feel this is an inherently POV article that is degrading to the United States Air Force and besides, there is already an entry in military slang for this topic. I would appreciate it if you would review the article, other comments and if you are so disposed, please add your opinion/comment. Thanks. --rogerd 19:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

removal of B787 technical analysis

What did you remove my link Mr McNeight? Aircraft projects under development are analysed by professionals all over the world, not simply accepted as gospel from the manufacturer's quotes. This analysis uses the best commercial tool available. Please restore the link to the piano.aero analysis of the Boeing 787 unless you can explain why it is not relevant. Thanks. - Dimitri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.143.5 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No skin off my should

Ok, no roughness. Is ok. Sorry from me to you if offenses were made.

Lighten up!

Dude! Grab a beer, a deck chair and chill! I am trying to be helpful, I am NOT vandalizing. My edits have been to help clear up why we should care about high traffic, nothing more. The template is unclear and needed some work. So what exactly is your problem?

???

Is that better?