User talk:Financialmodel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:F-22 Raptor. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Additionally, I suggest reading WP:CIVIL — BQZip01 — talk 17:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You are now engaged in an edit war in the Eurofighter Typhoon article and have made 3R actions in a 24-hour period. Please stop and wait until there is a decision by admins. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Financialmodel. I understand that you have issues with the F-22 Raptor and Eurofighter Typhoon pages. That's fine, but I'm asking you to cool down a bit. In particular, comments such as this one are not acceptable here; and labelling articles that contain content that you disagree with as "fanpages" is unhelpful and unlikely to help your cause. If you have specific grievances, there are plenty of mechanisms available to address them. Let me know if I can help. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


  • hey, I have already descriped it in several pages now, so I can only advise to start reading. My sourced input to Eurofighter is deleted by certain editors, and its then locked, with the reference to consensus, someting they have done for 2 years now. There wont be any consensus unless you agree with this group, and deletions and lock of article is how they work. If you mention critical input in thier F-22 section, there is no feedback, except "no", and result is no other edidtors than them can add material to these articles. In short, My input to Eurofighter was deleted and locked, and in F-22 its same style. Weeks now, with lots of sourced material, and no result. I refuse to have metarial removed and letting them have a monopoly on these article, not one change have i been allowed to make to articles so far, even with sources material from 3 diffent Congressional agencies. If thats how wiki works, than let play ball. Read comment in both articles, its all there. --Financialmodel (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • lock that article, the dispute is ongoing, but its ignored, and dispute sign have been removed several times by the same persons who is behind the dispute. No consensus reached --Financialmodel (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I've locked the article as you suggested in the hope that this might enforce a cooling-off period on both sides. My (cursory) examination of the three pages involved suggests that a consensus exists and that you are seeking to make changes that are contrary to that consensus. There's no problem with that in and of itself - consensus can change. However, the way to go about it is not by simply reverting each others' edits, but by working together to come up with a version of the article that you all more-or-less-agree represents a balanced view of the subject. I'll have a closer reading of the page histories when I get time in the next couple of days. In the meantime, it would be really helpful if you could provide a succinct summary of the issues in contention as you see them. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you removed the dispute tag before you locked it, so now noone can see its a disputed article. Nice move, jsut shows the bias of this site, you cant add new content its deleted and locked, you cant yestion an article its deleted and locked also. Somone need to clean up here in admins. --Financialmodel (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • LOL, dispute sign removed, article locked, and mention of dispute have been removed to buttom so noone will notice it, always same group, FNlayson from US aerospace industry, and the other mentioned--Financialmodel (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. A few points you might like to keep in mind:
  1. You can look at the page history of the article. I didn't move any dispute tag.
  2. I protected the page at your suggestion. It seems strange that you should now be complaining that it's been temporarily locked.
  3. Protection policy requires me to protect the page in whatever form it happens to be in, which I did.
  4. The very first thing that anyone sees on the page is bold text that says "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved". That should indicate to anyone that the content is disputed.
  5. On talk pages (whether article talk pages or personal talk pages) new material always goes to the bottom, by convention. Have a look at a few, and you'll see that this is true. I notice that when you left a message on my talk page, you placed it at the top (I've since moved it to the bottom).
  6. Anyone and everyone is always free to question an article. That's why we have talk pages.
  7. Anyone and everyone is not always free to add new content to an article.
I don't really know what else I can say to you at this point, but I remain open to any questions you may have. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Rlandmann said:"You can look at the page history of the article. I didn't move any dispute tag."

well if you had looked in the history as you yourself suggest, you would see the tag have been removed several times by those the dispute is with, and i have added it and asked for consensus before this tag is removed, since they delete and ignore the critics, which is why its dispute mention "aversion to criticism also". Dispute tag has been removed for 3-4 times now and you have lokced article to prenvent any futher mention the dispute, since its impossible to readd. Dispute discussion is moved to buttom, in short, now the complain will be ignored, and there is nothing to do, noone see the disute and you locked to article, with the result noone will. Perhaps you should have looked into history before locking? You seem to know its a good idea, since you suggest it, and yet you fail to do it yourself, since the removal of the dispute tag was alreday discussed there.

  • Rlandmann said: "Anyone and everyone is always free to question an article. That's why we have talk pages"

I have filledout pages on the talk pages, all in articleis removed, and articles locked to prevent any update that differ from this group, that delete sourced material, remove dispute signs, and now you lock it with the removed dispute sign, and tell me to fill a few more pages in the talk section, lol. Wiki is like a bad comedy show. --Financialmodel (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't follow your reasoning.
  1. Why did you accuse me of removing the dispute tag? You can see from the history that I didn't.
  2. If you didn't want the article locked, then why did you ask me to do it?
  3. Why do you keep trying to add new material to the top of talk pages?
  4. When an admin locks a page, it must be locked in whatever state it's in at that moment. Which I did. I am not allowed to go through the history and choose a version to lock - I have to lock whatever is there.
  5. I didn't tell you to add anything more to any talk pages. You're free to comment further if you like, and also free to not say anything more.
  6. If Wikipedia is like a "bad comedy show", no-one is forcing you to participate. But if you want to add material to this encyclopedia, you must do so according to our guidelines.
  7. If you want to include material, but a consensus exists among other editors that it should not be included for some reason, then the onus is on you to convince those editors that the material is worth including. There's no requirement that they must agree with you.
I have not yet finished trawling through the history of this long dispute. When I do, I'll be able to make more specific comments. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • to say it in short is that we have a conflict that is regarding "Disputed cost and aversion to criticism", and for this reason the article was marked as disputed, and should be such until backup was sent from wiki economics/trade part, to solve the issue. The current editors have a clear bias and refuse to allow adding cost figures from 3 different congressional agencies that will show the stated cost in UPC, which is the cost figure used by US congress, on the F-22:

Congressional reseach service (CRS) for Congress on June 12, 2007, page 7:

"The F-22A's average procurement unit cost is estimated at approximately $185.4 million per aircraft"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31673.pdf

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) before the Subcommittee on AirLand Committee on Armed Services United States Senate on July 25, 2006, page 2:

"However, because the F-22A has turned out to be much more expensive than other fighter aircraft— procuring 182 aircraft will cost an average of $185 million per plane"

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7424/07-25-F-22.pdf

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) before Subcommittee on Defense, House of Representatives June 20, 2006 , page 5:

"In other words, the unit procurement costs increase from $166 million per aircraft to $183 million per aircraft for the proposed multiyear contract."

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06455r.pdf

Congress says $185 million is the average price for the F-22 and they always use UPC, because this is what is infact paid by Congress per new F-22 bought. Editors here refuse to allow the adding of UPC next to fly-away-cost, though this will only inform readers about what Congress/us taxpayers pay per F-22. Besides this the F-22 editors here on wiki says 135 is the Fly away cost of the F-22, based on budget estimates picked for one year out of a multi year contract, as shown here: F-22 bias, fanpage manipulation. This number reflect the price for units number 114 to 134, and right now there are only 91 active f-22's as mentioned in start of article. Picking a pricetag for a quantity of 21 makes no sence, and certainly not when we know the first 92 F-22 have been cost 168 million USD, which is 30+ million USD more than stated in this article. The cherry picked price for 21 planes gives a wrong impression, and had this logic been used if even 1 F-22 had been purchased, instead of 21? What happens in 2010 when zero F-22 are in the budget, editors will write its free? We have all the numbers for this multiyear contract, and its normal for sellers to want the largest amount up front, as here, because the NPV is larger. Its finance 101.

And this is some of the reason why the article was marked as disputed (the rest you can read on page),with "RFC : Disputed cost and aversion to criticism". If you had watched the history of article, which you yourself suggested to me, you would have noticed the removal of dispute tag on article. This dispute tag would have informed readers of the problem, with link to RFC, and yet such was removed several times, and your lock (without taking notice of this deletion of tag and "aversion to criticism") made sure, noone will take notice of the current dispute, which has now been moved to buttom on page where noone will find it without link. Had this dispute tag been left, there would have been a situation that would reach for consensus, since no editors like a such tag, but now with the removal and lock of article, no consensus will be found, and "aversion to criticism" have won yet again. These editors will continue to delete anything critical, even when sourced, and if new complains arise, article will yet again be locked. Without a dispute tag, there will be no consensus, since it will just leave the biased material where it is with protection, as provided by you. In short, when you allow them to delete disputa tag, and protect their disputed work, they will have no motivation for consensus, and the bias continues. I hope that explained my point....--Financialmodel (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that summary of your position. I will now take the matter up with the other editors involved and listen to their side of the story.
As for the removal of the tag - How many times do I need to tell you that when an admin protects a page, they are compelled to protect whatever version exists at that moment in time? If the tag had been there on the page when I went there to protect it, then that is the version that would have been protected. But it wasn't, and so it isn't there in the protected version. When a page is protected, all editing stops. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

13 RFC : Disputed cost and aversion to criticism]. But the Procurement of this project have meant the planned numbers have been reduced fom 750+ to only 183, because the cost have exploded, yet article does not state this clearly. Just read US Congress papers from GAO, or Senator John McCain, "McCAIN INTRODUCES THE DEFENSE ACQUISTION REFORM ACT OF 2007", May 22, 2007:

"As stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars we must assure the public that we are buying the best programs for our servicemen and women at the best price for the taxpayer. I have already highlighted critical weapon systems with key acquisition problems. If we continue to buy weapon systems in an ineffective and inefficient manner so that costs continue to go up or the deployment of the system is delayed, it will only hurt the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in the field. "The reason for this is quite simple. First, it does not take an economics degree to understand that the higher that costs of a weapon system unexpectedly goes up, the fewer of them we can buy. A prime example is the F-22 Raptor. The original requirement was for 781 jet fighters, now we can only afford 183.

[1]


The cost overruns of the F-22 project are huge, and you can watch it in almost every GAO report since the start of the project. The article dont really explain this, neither does it explain the real result of this. How is this descriped in Congress by GAO:

Summary: Based on our review, in our opinion, the DOD has not demonstrated the need or value for making further investments in the F-22A program. The Air Force’s current stated “need” is for 381 F-22As to satisfy air-to-air missions and recently added requirements for more robust ground attack and intelligence-gathering capabilities. However, because of past cost overruns and current budget constraints, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) states that it can now afford only 183 F-22As. This leaves a 198-aircraft gap between the Air Force’s stated need and what is currently affordable [2]

So cost have gone up, because of the huge budget overruns in this procurement project, and you now cant afford more than 183 F-22's, which leaves a gab on 198-aircraft between what the USAF gets and what it wants. The article's "Procurement" section runs over this very easy, and instead goes to mention the great benefits of futher buys, and how cheap it is:

By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one additional F-22 is around $137 million; decreasing with larger volumes. If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost of each one would be less than $117 million and would continue to drop with additional aircraft purchases

  • "less than $117 million ", with a refference to USAF (which lobby hard for more than 183 F-22's), and the tittle of source is:

"F-22 excels at establishing air dominance.".


As already stated the extra cost for the US Congress and the US taxpayer is the UPC, which the 3 Congressional agencies linked to above tell us is about 185 million per aircraft e.g.:

"The F-22A's average procurement unit cost is estimated at approximately $185.4 million per aircraft".

True the manufacture like to refer to the Fly away cost, because such costs are lower, but the $137 million mentioned in article is, as already explained, the payment for the delivery of raptor number 114 to 134, in short a cherry picked number from a single year in a USAF budget estimates (difference between payments of cost also, which is why RFC is made to economics/trade section), which is just part of the multiyear contract. But this description and use of quote from USAF in article goes one step futher, it now puts it at, less than $117 million, AND "continue to drop". In short i dispute fair use of cost, and i dispute the current description of procurement, which contains almost no criticism, but instead quotes from USAF "F-22 excels at establishing air dominance.", that tells the reader about how cheap extra F-22's can be bought, while US Congress tells USAF it cant get the 381 F-22As it wants as a minimum, but that it will have to do with 183, in short, a "198-aircraft gap between the Air Force’s stated need and what is currently affordable". I dispute the fly away cost used here, i dispute the refusal to allow adding UPC cost used by Congress, and i dispute the fair use of sources, when you know there is a clear conflict between USAF and Congress on the numbers of procured F-22's because of cost, futher more i dispute the article as such which seems to have an aversion to criticism, and the several removals of the dispute tag jsut goes to prove this. This resulted in the article being locked without a the needed dispute tag, which had been needed to gain consensus, now when article is locked with the disputed material and no dispute tag, the disputed material is protected, and the biased editors have no reason to stop their vandalism deletion critical material, nor to seeks any consensus, since their material is protected --Financialmodel (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(ok perhaps i could have explained that part better, but i have a few other thinks to do so I hopeyou can see the points) --Financialmodel (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few more questions

After input from other editors, I'd like to run some ideas past you.

1. The figure currently quoted for the F-22 cost is held to be the basic Flyaway Cost of the aircraft. Do you agree that this is an accurate figure for the basic flyaway cost? (whether or not you think that the basic flyaway cost should be quoted).
1a. If you don't think this is accurate, what do you state the basic flyaway cost to be?
2. The basic flyaway cost is the cost presented in all aircraft articles on Wikipedia (see the guideline here). Choosing to present a different cost for the F-22 would not be consistent with what we do in other articles. However, since it's (evidently) a contentious issue in the case of the F-22, other editors have suggested that a footnote should be included in this particular article explaining the difference between basic flyaway cost and average unit cost. What do you think of that compromise?

Thanks --Rlandmann (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

- I dont have any problem with quoting basic flyaway cost, but i have a problem with how its done now in the F_22 article. In the F-22 article you have done wat should be considered original research. You found some 100+ pages budget estimates list for a multiyear contract, and the you picked a price for a single year, for a quantity thats not even active. either you take a total average or an average price for the active f-22, pciking the price for e.g. quantity 122-142 and using this pricetag to descripe the unit cost of an F-22 is something no economist would ever do.

In short, fly away cost are ok to use, but i think it should be done correct, and i think it should be stated clearly that this is what is shown. Also i think pricetags such as UPC and program quantity cost should be included also, since this is what is used by governments, as i have shown for 3 congress agencies. The more info the better. Just to make a small footnote is not a solution, since only few can be expected to read it. Provide flyawaycost, UPC, and unit progam cost, and then make a footnot or reference where readers can learn about the difference is my solution.--Financialmodel (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)