User talk:Evil Merlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Evil Merlin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

You removed the Criticism section from Dell, Inc. - the fact that other manufacturers don't have a Criticism section doesn't mean Dell should not. There are some separate and unique criticisms made of Dell; other more generic criticisms have been tagged as such in the article. Some of the already-active editors on this article are loyal Dell customers (I believe my firm spends several millions of dollars with Dell annually, and I buy 2/3 of servers and all desktops and laptops from them, several hundred machines last year). I understand your concerns, but please work with the flow here :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A variants

You've added a lot to the article - thanks! Any chance you have a reference work you could cite for these details? The more we're able to cite references, the more reputable we can become as a source. Also - it's a nitpick, but plurals (multiple aircraft, for example) don't use apostrophe-s: the proper form is Fw 190s. Thanks again for your work on the 190, though! ericg ✈ 00:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the update. If you could add the references to the article using {{cite book}}, that would be great... and if you could cite inline with the text (using cite.php - it's pretty neat, really!) that would be even cooler. New Dora additions are looking good! ericg ✈ 03:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not perform wholesale criticism removals

You removed the entire criticism page from Arstechnica. Please do not do this. There is a fairly active Talk page, and many of these criticisms have been discussed. Feel free to contribute to this discussion, and try to improve the criticism section. I don't know if this is a trend that you follow (i.e. there is mention of you removing the criticism section in the Dell article above), but there is a place for criticism on Wikipedia.--216.227.82.35 17:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galland article

Sir, you removed a quote from the article, that is supported by the reference you gave to prove the quote false. In Galland's book "The First And The Last", as the article states, he writes..."Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' """

He continues to write " ...After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way..." THIS is what you should have done, and makes the Wiki article more interesting, because it shows the context of the Galland's quote, which the original editor left out.

Please update the Galland article accordingly. If you choose not to, I will re enter the quote on the Galland page and indicate the context. I was not the original editor that added the quote but I think it illustrates Galland's personality and should be in the Wiki article. Mfields1 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit on Messerschmitt Me 262

Hi, Evil Merlin, I just noticed your recent edit on the Messerschmitt Me 262 article. I’m afraid to say that I disagree with your argumentation about the Gloster Meteor being world’s the first jet-fighter before the Me 262. Let’s compare the detailed dates giving in both articles:

Maiden flights:

  • Me 262: 18 April 1941 with piston engines, 18 July 1942 with jet engines
  • Meteor: 5 March 1943

Introduction to the troops (going operational)

  • Me 262: April 1944
  • Meteor: June 1944

So, the Me 262 was flying earlier than the Meteor by quite a big margin of several months, and additionally being given to the troops earlier (although by a rather small margin of some weeks). Therefore, I will change the article back to my previous text, stating that the Me 262 was world’s first operational jet fighter, unless you can cite some sources that prove the opposite. Thanks for your understanding. MikeZ 07:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schrage Musik

Apparently the Germans had a very effective fire control system for their fighters in WWII called Schrāge Musik 'Crooked Music'. Do you know about this system?


  • Indeed I do. There were infact several types of Scharge Musik... most seemed to be very effective! Almost all were tied around a Revi C.12/D or 16B gun site and used MG FFs or MG 151/20s. There is a great article on Wiki about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%A4ge_Musik

[edit] Me262 gun platform

It's good that you've got sources, but share them with the Wikipedia's readers. Don't just cite your sources in change summaries, cite them in the article. --Robert Merkel 06:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Robert on this one. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CITE and WP:FOOT. The whole crux of Wikipedia credibility lies in users citing sources to support material they place in the articles. This not only gives support to your writing, but it also permits others to verify the information and ultimately make the best possible encyclopedia. Thank you for contributing. - Emt147 Burninate! 10:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wtf?

May I ask why you reverted my referenced expansion of the Me 262 testing? None of your (apparently precious) additions were touched, I merely expanded on the history of the particular airplane that was tested (you assertion is bullshit -- the reference I cited GIVES the proof that the modified 262 was used for the performance tests, as does a simple Google search for FE-4012). The very basic common decency would dictate a discussion before removing additions supported by credible references. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool off. That's not what you said in your edit summary. Regardless, the correct way to deal with this would have been by modifying the text to disambiguate this issue instead of being an ass and all-out reverting a legitimate contribution to the article. Incidentally, do YOU have this reference? It specifically says that FE-4012 was prepared for comparison tests with the P-80. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gloster Meteor

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft I notice you are getting a real workout in reverting this article. My comment is posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft page; maybe it's time to refer this user's antics to an administrator. Comment: 'I need some help here. One editor has constantly (12 times under his user name, perhaps many others with an IP address only, since 30 January 2007) reverted the introductory paragraph to read that the Gloster Meteor was the first operational jet fighter. Now there may be compelling arguments for this claim, however, this editor has taken to using the article and the Me 262 article as the forum for his argument rather than taking it to the discussion pages. Since there is no consensus from other editors, I believe that the most effective path would be to have bonafide sources and provide them in the discussion page. From a cursory observation of the same editor's modus operandi, he has also been involved in a similar dispute on the de Havilland Comet article where again he has championed a very nationalist viewpoint which has been characterized as "POV." What can be done? Is there a way to block his constant reversions? Bzuk 22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, one could perhaps refer to an offense against the WP:3RR rule and report him/her to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Is it User:Michael Shrimpton that you are referring to? MoRsE 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. Bzuk 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
What pisses me off the most is the fact that we have ACCURATELY posted the first flights of all the planes in question. The Me-262 flew first. He is tyring to play the sematics game... I LOVE a great discussion, but Shrimpton has no desire to discuss anything. --Evil.Merlin 04:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Want a hoot? Do a google search on our friend. I was astonished at what I found. This is a classic case of a person highly respected in his field of expertise but...Bzuk 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Oh my... --Evil.Merlin 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Merlin, our friend finally made a major slip- he reverted three "good-faith edits" in a 24-hour period, you can now nominate him to be blocked. I would encourage you to do exactly that. Bzuk 20:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I have blocked User:Michael Shrimpton for 24 hours for violating the 3RR, and have outlined my position on his talk page. As I have stated there, I am offering the following advice: for those involved in this dispute, try not to make significant edits to the Messerschmitt Me 262, De Havilland Comet, or Gloster Meteor articles. Stick to minor edits, and include with each edit a reference for the information you are changing or adding. One of the most important policies of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

I think that everyone involved needs to take a step back from these articles for a moment, take a deep breath, and make sure that what they are doing is correct. Do not continue to revert each others edits or further action will be required. -Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avro Arrow

Hi Mr. Evil Merlin, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro CF-105 Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fellows this is silly stuff.

Maury, Bill, my Fellow CDNS, Relax.

Fellows,its spring. count the disputes you are in( I'm at one) & rack  up for free play.

Look, the date of jet service entry is not that important.

All  WW2 records are incomplete, esp. in Germany.(Citation, Reg's Dad- , fluent in German & English, Cdn army sargent, Occ. forces, 1945!) Please note that over 80% of these "We will take action, Michael" edits come from my fellow Canadians. Given our tiny worldwide overall membership, this is SCARRRY.

Fellows,its spring. Please break clean, before the rest of the world assumes we have been "winter bit by the Wendigo..!"\

Ps: Bill old fella, how come Michael didn't get one of your infamous chain letters accusing me of being a "sock puppet?' I thought you sent that to EVERYYONE ON the Wikinet [edit] posted with a mediator: Without drawing down 'Holy fire', Bill, please consider Michaels' argument in view of:

a. Precise dates for events in Nazi Germany , summer 1944-spring 1945, are OFTEN not verifiable. The reasons: 1. Records were ALTERED to place, or remove, participants from events prosecuted. German military staff were ordered to attend, slave labour conferences to render them complicit. In order not to explain that someone was a powerless bystander at an event discussing slave labour, documetation ,is 'produced' that he was flying the Me262 on a certain date, for example.

I refer you to Robert Jacksons' Nuremburg summaries. Not only were the Nazis masters at altering fact, some records were altered to protect the truly innocent.

Michael, Bill, would you accept the Scottish verdict of 'not proven', given the nature of the evidence ?


Red,I posted this at "Gloster Meteor", as BZUK wants to have Michael Shrimpton 'executed on line':-')

Bill, can we just close some of these disputes without jurisprudence? Regards

Opuscalgary 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fw 190 ariticle, FockeWulfer and the missing citations

Sorry about the title, it sounds like a Harry Potter novel.

As a fan of the Fw 190 and a contributer toward the article, I thought you should know the above mentioned user has been deleting material that had been sourced. Being more a "Messerschmitt man", I thought perhaps it would be best if you could keep an eye on the page. Dapi89 (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Messerschmitt Me 262

I'll say the same thing that I said to User:Denniss. I notice that you reverted me inserting a tag on the above article requesting citations for it being the first "jet fighter". This is how I would treat any other important fact on Wikipedia that lacks a reference. I do not wish to enter an edit war on this, and hold no partisan views on the matter. However, if this is a fact, it needs to be verified in the body of the article. It is not truth but verifiability which is key - that's my understanding of Wikipedia. If it is a fact, there will be many reliable references for it. All I ask is that they are added in the article. It should not be up to the reader to trawl a talk page and wade through various editors' personal arguments and opinions to establish if something is fact or fiction. Regards Emoscopes Talk 10:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)