I recently made edits to several pages. I was not logged in at the time as I had forgotten my user name and password which I have since recovered. The edits included links to photographs of historic aircraft two of which are the only surviving examples of their kind. Via a BOT edit all of my edits were removed including the factual changes made to the articles. While I can see possibly some justification to removing the external links even thought they were links to photographs that would add to the user's knowledge and experience, the removal of the factual content by using the Speedy Deletion Process seems totally unjustified. The factual changes are well documented and have even been included on other Wikipedia web pages by different contributors. I linked to at least one Wikipedia article when I added the content. I attempted to contact the admin who deleted my material but I have apparently been blocked. While I don't believe it is Wikipedia's intent to present historically inaccurate information, apparently an administrator does not want the material included and apparently does not want to discuss the matter given my inability to either email him or post a message to him. By blanking my revision he left intact historically inaccurate information on the purchase and use by the Kingdom of Siam (Thailand) of the Curtiss Hawk III aircraft. In the reverted form of the article it appeqrs China was the only operator of the Hawk III which is inaccurate. Thailand purchased and built Hawk III aircraft and used them in the French-Thai war of 1940-42₁ Further he removed links to photos of the only surviving example of that aircraft as well as links to photos of the oldest surviving Chance Vought and the only one of its kind left. While the addition of the content (concerning Thailand's manufacturing and use of several historical lines of aircraft). While I had hoped to contribute meaningful material to Wikipedia, it now appears the arbitrary action of one administrator will prevent that. Since the administrator apparently refuses to permit me to discuss the issue, is there anything I can do other than accept his revisionist history?

* 1. in 1933 the Thais chose to use the machines of the Curtiss firm. At first they acquired twelve Hawk II fighters and later assembled themselves under license 25 Hawk IIIs. In 1938 the Americans began delivery of a group of 25 relatively modern Hawk 75N monoplanes. They also bought from Uncle Sam attack aircraft: 78 Vought V-100 Corsair biplanes assembled under license NYerkes 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It may have been a mistake if the administrator in question is unfamiliar with the subject matter in question, because admins don't delete material for the sheer fun of it. Material usually gets deleted because it violated copyright or because it is vandalism. It may have been a misunderstanding, and if you think this is the case, you'll need to contact the admin in question and discuss the matter. I'm sure he'll be happy to help. If you've been blocked, get another account to do this. If not, you could provide links to the pages you edited here, and we could see what the problem is. Regarding the BOT edits, Bots only revert if vandalism is obvious, for example, if vulgar words have been included, large portions of text have been deleted, etc. If the Bot is malfunctioning, admins will have to be notified. Hope that helps. Lradrama 14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are two links to material that was revised:

diff to F11C Goshawk, diff to O2U Corsair

Okay, thankyou for that. With the first edit, I can see nothing wrong with what you did. Unless the information you provided was false, it shouldn't have been reverted.

However, can you explain why you removed the external links section in the second example? That type of removal of content is easy to mistake for vandalism. Many people would have revrted that under removal of content.

If the claims you have made are true, reference them. Provide proof. I'll tell you how to do this if you wish. Lradrama 14:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove the external links section in the second example. In fact none had existed until I added the external links section to the article. The administrator who removed all my posts removed that section too. The external link I provided was to a copy of a photograph of the the only remaining V93S Corsair. It is also the oldest remaining Chance Vought aircraft existing.

"In 1978, a V-93S in the Royal Thai Aviation Museum was the oldest Vought aircraft in existence."

"The V-93S was a modified model of the Vought O3U-6."

http://www.voughtaircraft.com/heritage/products/html/v-93s.html

Note the admin chose to leave all referrences to the Chinese O3Us in the article while removing mine and as well as other posts other using the Speedy Removal Process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for accusing you of removing the external links section, it was my mistake, no worries at all. Now then, I think when the admin so the work Products at the top of the page, he/she instantly removed the link because of the negative connotations of that word when associated with external links. If the website is a promotional website, i.e. that is a product for sale and is being advertised, it is classed as a spam link. Links to websites which advertise / sell products are not allowed. If you can find another picture that would be better. Or, even better, do you have a picture of the plane that you created / photographed yourself? Because if you do, we can upload it onto the website and put it onto the article. You don't need an external link that way, because everyone will see it on the article. How about that? Lradrama 14:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if another Wikipedian could continue to help this user because I'm going to have to leave my computer now. If he/she replies and someone could help, that would be brilliant. Thankyou, Lradrama 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no physical products for sale on the webs links that were deleted. Both museums presently shown are free to the public. If products are a concern why hasn't the admin removed the other links to museum aircraft including those from private museums? Warbird Alley is definitely a commercial enterpise but they are linked to a number of aircraft descriptions in Wikipedia. Then there is the Temora Aviation Museum, also a commercial venture. They not only have links on a number of historic aircraft pages but they also have their own Wikipedia page complete with a link to their website. Why didn't the admin see fit remove them when he deleted the links I provided? Are there two sets of rules here? Why did the admin see fit to removed factual information I provided that was not related to an external link?. Apparently the admin who used the speedy deletion process to remove my posts didn't even read them. While I assumed Wikipedia supported the inclusion of factual information apparently that is not the case given my recent experience. Admins apparently can do no wrong. Admins apparently can refuse to discuss a removal. Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to operate? While I have considerable factual knowledge including the resources to back up what I say regarding Thailand and aviation in Thailand (see the two links to supporting references), apparently the admins are free to delete posts without as much as reading them and they do this with impunity. What is the point of trying to contribute when someone with admin privileges can simply wipe out your work leaving the editor with no real recourse? If Wikipedia is intent on creating quality content this is not the way to go about it. It i really frustrating to see an admin given the authority of god who is unwilling to even discuss a deletion.

The Wikipedia policy on vandalism is as follows though you already know it.

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

Committing blatant vandalism violates Wikipedia policy. If you find that another user has vandalized Wikipedia, you should revert the changes and warn the user (see below for specific instructions). Users who vandalize Wikipedia repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and administrators may block them."

What is the difference between an ordinary wallflower vandal and an administrator who decides to attack content using the speedy delete process with no basis for doing so? I suspect I am wasting my time bring up these issues since a it appears the lowly contributor is always at fault. I would have hoped someone would take it seriously. If I repost the material what is to stop the same admin from wiping out the material again? Apparently nothing. There ought to be required etiquite for administrator but apprently that is not the case at Wikipedia. It appears to be a matter of always justifying what an admin has done. Regardless of what the admin believes, Thailand did in fact employ the aircraft I mentioned. Thailand di in fact manufacture under license the aircraft I mentioned. Thailand did in fact use the aircraft I mentioned during the French-Thai war. Thailand did in fact purchase and manufacture Curtiss Hawk III aircraft. China was not the only country using this type as the admin believes. Apparently this admin thought the dissemination of those facts to be so critical that he used the Speedy Delete process to remove them before readers could see them. What a waste of my time trying to add content when an admin can without even reading the content delete it. I wouldn't feel so aggrieved if this admin had allowed me to discuss the deletion but apparently he has decided to isolate himslf. I could not sned an email nor could I post to his talk page as he suggests. What would stop the same admin from deleting my posts again should I restore the information? NYerkes 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can try to look at what happened, but be aware that the long diatribe casting all 1350 administrators in a negative light when you disagree with the actions of 1 of them is likely not helping your case. Succinct descriptions and attempts to contact the admin in question would help. Leebo ^T/C 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)If you readded the information and then he deleted it again, then that would be the beginnings of an edit war and no-one wants one of those. Where have you tried to discuss this with the admin concerned? Have you tried talking to User:El_C on his User talk:El_C or indeed on the talk pages of the articles concerned. I don't think that the admin was acting with impunity or that he intended to offend you. I think he was trying to protect the integrity of wikipedia. You say that you have sources to back up your information, could you state on the talk page of the article, the text that you want added and the reference for that text. Then other users can see what they think about the addition and whether it is accurate.

The speedy deletion process that you talk about is the revert system that is open to use by all editors. Try and open up dialogue on the talk page concerned and try to Assume good faith. I am sure that no-one means to offend. Woodym555 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

I did not readd anything period. I do not want an edit war. I did not intend to cast dispersions on all the admins. However, it appeared the last contact here was attempting to justify what this admin did to the exclusion of looking at the facts. At one point I was hastily accused of deleting the Extenal Links Section. The person did apologize after I pointed out it was the admin who did so. But then the conversation again again turned to defending the admin's behavior. It appeared to me that rather than working to resolve the issue the person was more interested in defending the admin. As to contacting the admin in question. I attempted to do so first by email (my attempt to email was rejected) then by posting to his talk page which I was also unable to do. It was only after those attempts that I posted here. I had a nice email and post prepared asking him to reconsider. The more this continues the more it appears I am being judged as the only at fault party here. If I can't contact the admin by email or post to his talk page what recourse do I have? I don't have his phone number and I am not a mind reader. NYerkes 16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that you haven't readded anything. You have done the right thing by asking for help. With regards to the external links, i made that mistake when i looked at it, it is easy to misread a diff. Try to contact him on his talk page. Why could you not post to his talk page the first time?. What error message came up? It is not protected so you should be able to edit it. I think everyone is trying to help you and trying to decipher what is going on. I don't think anyone has blamed you here for anything. If you weren't logged in you probably couldn't email him. Try and stay logged in. Please try and keep an open mind, i am sure that dialogue will reslove this situation. Woodym555 16:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything preventing you from leaving a note on his talk page with this account. Also, your IP address, the one you contributed to and the one El C left a message for, has never been blocked. So there should be no reason you can't leave El C a message. Tell him his conduct is under discussion at least. Leebo ^T/C 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Since El C was already contacted regarding my posts is there any need for me to do so? Reading what was posted on El C's talk page it appears that there is a consensus that the deletion of my posts using the Speedy deletion process was just and proper. I Since El C is now aware of the posts I made here it further seems that he has no problem with some commercial websites such as WarBirdAlley.com, Motorbooks.com, WWW.K5054.com (supports the site through advertising),etc. since they remain as external links on many of Wikipedia's aviation articles. Apparently operating under a double standard is acceptable practice among administrators. There was a referrence made to new users not understanding how Wikipedia works. I am to understand that part of how Wikipedia works is for Admins to circle the wagons when one admin's behavior is questioned? That is what appears to have taken place here. Is this how Wikipedia really works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what you keep referring to as "speedy deletion". Speedy deletion refers to the criteria for speedy deletion, which are rules which allow administrators to delete certain articles without discussion. No article was deleted, so please stop insinuating that that happened. I looked at the discussion at User talk:El C and it's all about how you couldn't contact him, not about the actual issue. Talk to him. Leebo ^T/C 02:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of Bots by an administrator to remove all posts of a user regardless of content is not Speedy Deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 02:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So an administrator removing all posts of user is an acceptable practice? An administrator operating under 2 sets of rules is an acceptable practice? I was able to contact El C this time. It will be interesting to see what the response will be. NYerkes 02:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As suspected, EL C did not address my concerns but deflected by accusing me of misbehavior. I did as mentioned attempt to contact him unsuccessfully yesterday. It was only after finding I was unable to contact him did I resort to posting on the help desk. Yet he accuses me of posting here first when I did in fact attempt to contact via 2 resources. His failure to address my concerns regarding the posting of factual information specific to each article I edited suggests he will continue to delete any posts I make as he did before. Apparently he continues to believe he should remove certain posts since the others remain which blatantly contain advertising continue to exist despite my specifically informing him of their existence and content. Those sites are blatantly commercial yet he chooses to ignore their links and in at least one instance their creation of a Wikipedia article about their enterprise. Why doesn't he just use his powers to ban me since by deleting my posts and implying by failing to address the issue of the deletion of my factual information from several articles he will continue to do so he effectively accomplishes that end. What is my recourse now? Am I expected to simply stop adding factual content? NYerkes 03:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, your contributions for this account, and your IP show you did not discuss any issue with anyone prior to bringing it here. This is not the place to discuss content disputes, or issues you have with other editors, this is the a place to get help using Wikipedia, and I would urge you to either discuss your problems calmly with El_C, and listen to what he has to say, or take the issue to WP:AN. I read El_C's response, and it seems to be quite explanatory. Additionally, please do not assume that all reverts are done by a bot, unless they say "bot" in the name, they are just simply done by editors trying to abide by policies and guidelines. Please have a little good faith with other editors. I realize that Wikipedia can be a pretty confusing place if you're not familiar with it, but if you take a little time and review some of the policies and guidelines, it may help you get a better idea of what the decisions are based upon. As for your content dispute, I would really encourage you to go to the article's talk page, make a section there explaining why you wish to include the information that was removed, explain why it helps the context of the article, and allow the community to discuss it and come to a consensus about it. This would be a very helpful thing to do, as well as a way to get other opinions. I do understand your frustration, truly, but I would encourage you to perhaps go about this a bit differently. Ariel♥Gold 03:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

When I was unable to either email or post to EL C user page yesterday I began looking for other resources. I read this on Jimbo Wales page, "The best thing to do, if you have a complaint, is to start with the help desk.". That is my reason for posting here. While you won't find a record of my contact since none was successfully completed yesterday I did in fact make the attempts. Even today my initial attempts to contact him were not successful. I kept getting a notice that there was a posting conflict whne not other posts had been added. Rather than attempting to insert after the last post (one regarding a graphic) as I had previously done I move up a post and was able to insert at that location. Next time have problems posting I will do a screen save since it appears the veracity of what I stated is questioned. If you follow the thread you will note I deliberately did not use El C's user name in my post. That was instigated by a a response to my post. I was asked to post examples of the deletions which I did. Early off it was suggested that my poss were deleted bacause of an appearance of vandalism (However, can you explain why you removed the external links section in the second example? That type of removal of content is easy to mistake for vandalism. Many people would have revrted that under removal of content). When it was pointed out this particular administrator removed the external links section then is was no longer considered vandalism or even something appearing to be vandalism there was an apology made to me for the suggestion I had done so. I did not want to use EL C's user name out of respect. In fact I did not specifically use EL C's user name until long after others had done so. Yet I now stand accused by El C of doing just that. Had I been able to contact him directly in my earlier attempts perhaps things would be resolved. It now appears a resolution other than a de facto ban of any of my posts is unlikely. NYerkes 04:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflicts are not always obvious, it is likely that someone was replying to a thread farther up on the page, and you were not aware of it. When this happens, your edit will be in a bottom window, and you can simply copy it into the new edit conflict window. I'm not questioning your truthfulness, as you imply, I'm simply explaining that there are a number of reasons for edit conflicts, and they are not always something you'd notice. And please realize that you are not being accused of doing anything, nobody is doubting you, but this is a content dispute, and I would honestly encourage you to take this issue to the article's talk page, to get additional input if you have doubts about the edits made. Or simply make your changes again under your user name, and provide your explanation for changes in the edit summary box so there is no misunderstanding as to your edits. I encourage you to have some faith in other editors, don't assume the worst, and don't assume anyone is "banning your posts" as you've stated many times, as that is most definitely not the issue. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 04:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I will take it to the article talk page. However, the removal of all posts I made by using a Bot (Cydebot, I did check) appears to indicate a blanket banning by an editor of all posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I would need to see some diffs to know what the edits were, but you can go visit User:Cydebot to see what that bot does. However, that bot is not associated with, El_C, and it has been approved by Wikipedia to do specific tasks. Bots do not answer to any administrator to "blanket ban" users, and are not used in that way. I realize how it could look to you, and you can discuss possible mistakes on the bot owner's talk page. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 04:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As Lladrama did earlier, you misread the diff. Cydebot was changing a category per the WP:CFD page and did not revert your edits. El_C has used the revert tool that anyone can use in the article history. Woodym555 09:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
• If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
• If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Do not

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
• Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
• There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
• Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Exactly where on this continuum is the removal of factual content by using the revert tool? NYerkes 13:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is that using terms like "speedy deletion" and "bots" incorrectly paints a picture of something different than what happened, because those terms have exact definitions and they mean something specific. El C used the rollback tool to revert your edit. He did not "speedy delete something with a bot". It's misleading because of the terminology you're using. I agree that that's not the way the rollback tool should be used, but please stop using the wrong terminology to make this sound like it's something much more drastically abusive. Leebo ^T/C 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I used the wrong terminology. I am relatively new here and did not expect to have my posts reverted without regard to content. I have tried to take a crash course in Wikipedia rules after I discovered the removal of my posts but apparently my effort is insufficient. While I would love to participate in adding content, such as the factual material I added regarding Thailand's production, ownership and usage of particular types of military aircraft, at this point I can see no useful purpose in it since my work can be reverted on the whim of an administrator who doesn't feel it necessary to look at the content if he believes a violation of some policy has occurred in any portion of a post. Wikipedia will do just as well without my participation or anyone else he decides isn't appropriate. I can assure you that what was said in the article on the revert tool is true. "Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor." A slap in the face is exactly what it feels like. NYerkes 15:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's perfectly understandable for you to feel that way. As I said, the rollback tool shouldn't be used that way. Even the undo function (available to all editors) shouldn't be used that way. If he thought your links were inappropriate, he could have left an edit summary like "removing inappropriate links per Wikipedia:External links guidelines". Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Leebo ^T/C 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As i commented on El_C's talk page, i understand that you are an inexperienced user and that you will not understand the terminology. I agree that he should not have rolled back you edits likt that without talking to you and that the use of the tools can lead to this situation. I think that El_C was doing his best to protect wikipedia from vandalism and false edits that undermine the accuracy and veracity of the encyclopedia. All work on wikipedia can be edited, it is an open encyclopedia. Look at the note at the bottom: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. It was inappropriate for him to have removed those edits without discussion. Now, what you can do is discuss this with him on his talk page. He has replied to you post there. Please try not to be perturbed and disheartened by these events. Woodym555 15:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, when I noticed as you pointed out the discussion going in circles which in opinion meant my remedies were exhausted I sent a email to Jimbo Wales. Whether he reads the letter or not is up to him. His procedure requires that attempts to remedy the situation be exhausted before contacting him. This has been going nowhere for sometime now. In the letter to Mr. Wales I answered EL_C's leading question which he could have just as easily answered himself. I do not block the registry data on any of the over 1000 generic domains I own. I own the photographs. I own the domain. I do not use that domain for commercial purposes though at this point I might as well. I am building another non-commercial website to document the reconstruction of a 13th century Buddhist temple that was destroyed during an ancient war with Burma. Though I am not Buddhist, I was asked to photograph and shoot video of the project by the Abbot of the temple who has become a friend. The temple has a fascinating history particularly the disposition of the original Buddha image. Most of the image is gone but in the late 1800s the face plates were discovered buried near the site. Today they rest in a government museum. The original image was called the Buddha of 1000 bolts because the plates were fastened not welded. I have as yet unedited documentation of the original 10 meter tall bronze Buddha image and the reproduction that was cast including the techniques used to make the moulds and smelt the bronze. In addition to those two I have other domains that are commercial and photos from those are not linked to Wikipedia. For the record good generic domains have built in traffic due to natural type in. Such is the case with that domain. I do believe the individual photos I linked to are relevant and added to the users experience. I have also been shown photographs of what I determined was an engine from a WWII Japanese KI-27 that was found in the jungle of Northern Thailand. A little research revealed it was likely the mount of a Thai pilot who was shot down during WWII. I am trying to get approval to retrieve the engine and look for the remains of the aircraft and pilot. Thais as do people in most other cultures find comfort when the location of a deceased loved one's body is known. If approval comes I will be photographing and shooting video to document the expedition.

From what I read of the rules, linking to photographs where the owner does not want to give up the copyright is acceptable if the material enhances the user experience. I do not want to give up my copyrights though any written copy I provide is free for the taking as was the case with the deleted material. That said, watch what happens when I put that information on EL_C's talk page. I will likely be further insulted and will likely hear a justification for deleting all my posts whether linked photos or otherwise. I enjoy telling people about my adopted home Thailand whether for free or for profit. I can add copy and articles without the addition of photographs if Wikipedia decides visual material isn't important if it produced by an editor who does not wish to give up his copyright but even the written copy is likely to be viewed as suspect since I own a number of domains and websites and have already been identified at least by this particular individual as a vandal even though that was not my intent and in fact may not have been my action. Meanwhile for reasons unknown, other organizations such as Motor Books and the Double Star Group both of which are commercial websites one of which is purely so are permitted to continue to extensively link to Wikipedia unimpeded.

That said, nothing further will be gained by discussing this. If Lord EL_C decides I am a vandal as appears to be the case Wikipedia can do just as well with my contributions or anyone else's contribution he deems unworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 04:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another section break

Not only that, he doesn't even bother to address when asked to do so the removal of verifiable factual material not related to any link. Instead he wants to engage on the links issue. The links could have been easily removed separately. However what was done was something entirely different. Non redundent verifiable factual content not linked to anything was also removed using the revert tool. It now appears after the revert for example that China was the only buyer and user of Curtiss Hawk III aircraft. Thailand not only bought them they built many under license. The Hawk II and Hawk III both were used by Thailand during the French-Thai war. Now it appears only China used Hawk III aircraft in combat and even that fact does not contain references. Thailand holds the only surviving Hawk III in the world. One of the alleged inappropriate links was to a copy of a photograph of that aircraft. Another removal of factual material concerned the pre WWII Corsairs. The link to the photograph, again of the only surviving example and coincidently, at least according to a Chaince Vought website, the oldest Chance Vought aircraft in existence could have been easily removed. Instead the article was reverted removing the unlinked verifiable factual text too. Apparently there is some good reason the public should not know these facts since no one is willing to address their removal or at least address the inappropriate removal. Maybe I am misreading material again since I am new but apparently EL_C spends a great deal of time every day reverting articles after they have been edited. I suspect he does so in a similar manner to they way he did the reverts to my edits though I have only my experience to suggest that. Reposting the material will likely only result in the same action since no one will explain why the added non-linked verifiable factual material is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYerkes (talk • contribs) 15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason that "no one will explain" the other issues (I assume you're referring to me and the others trying to help) is because this issue is so convoluted and drawn out that it's very difficult to determine exactly what happened. Instead of a succint description of what was added and how it was removed, I've read pages of rhetorical questions related to administrator conduct that don't seem to logically flow with what happened. Leebo ^T/C 16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What El_C does, is called recent changes patrol. He looks vandalism edits in the recent changes log. I think we can discern that your "factual edits" i.e. not the addition of the link, were reverted incorrectly. If you would care to reinsert them, that would be a help to the encyclopedia. This is not the place to discuss the accuracy though, of the material that you want to insert in the article. We are not experts in that subject. The best place to discuss that would be on the article talk page. If you were to reference the material that you added to the external link, or to another source, then editors would not rollback your edits. If they do, then discuss it on their talk page. Is it not now time to move on, and to put your obvious writing talents towards building an encyclopedia? Woodym555 16:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Throughout the entire process of RC patrol, it is important to remember not to bite the newbies. Far from being a monolithic horde of vandals, trolls, and spammers, the available evidence seems to indicate that newcomers write most of Wikipedia's content.[1]

If you see a new user or IP address contributing, welcome them if you're so inclined, and include a pointer or two of feedback about how they can make their contributions even better. Most will gladly welcome the support.

It is also important to assume good faith as much as possible, or, minimally to assume incompetence instead of malice. For example, remember not everyone is as computer literate as you; some people will accidentally blank or damage pages when attempting to cut and paste material from Wikipedia. Others may not understand that, yes, their changes really are visible to the entire world.

"Recent Changes Patrollers must maintain a level of respect for fellow editors."

Apparently EL_C doesn't see it that way. It must be too much fun insulting new users and feeling the power that comes with being an administrator. I hope all administrators don't act that way.

Now this has descended into mud-slinging. This is not the proper forum for this. If you have a problem with the admin concerned, take it up with him on his talk page. Discuss it, i.e. have a two way conversation. I see that he is still waiting for your reply. The help desk is not the place for slandering reputations. Woodym555 01:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It seem that insulting and slandering me and other new users is OK but not OK for him? I am told to move on. He is free to continue acting in a heavy handed manner despite apparent policy or if you want to be technical, suggestions that such behavior is inappropriate. Can he do no wrong? Is that the case? Since my entire posts we wiped out due to linking, help me understand what is permissible. Am I to understand that linking to individual photographs that would enhance a user's experience ie. pictures of the only surviving Hawk III, V93S Corsair and other very rare but not totally unique aircraft not permitted? At what point are links permissible? What about photos with intact copyrights? It appears from what I read that links to material that enhances a users experience are supposed to be permitted. I noticed the links to commercial sites I pointed out to EL_C remain even after he acknowledged them as part of the message. One in fact has no redeeming content whatever. The Motor Books site is strictly advertising and includes the company's Ebay page. That behavior makes it appear he does not act on an neutral basis which I thought administrators are supposed to do. NYerkes 02:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I said that you should move this discussion to the admins talk page. You have not brought up these concerns with him. How can he act on problems that he has not been made aware of? I am not condoning his actions nor am i condoning yours. He can do wrong as much as the next person. El_C does not resort to name calling and personal attacks though, which is what this has degenerated into. He reverts what he sees as vandalism. I implore you to DISCUSS this with him on his talk page and highlight the problems that you have with his actions. In terms of links, earlier i mentioned inserting it and referencing the addition. This is becoming a rather circular discussion. Woodym555 02:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Woody if you noticed I did attempt to discuss this with him. He made a flip answer about the links I mentioned. He has yet to act on any of them including the aforementioned Motor Books link which is pure advertising. He wants to engage only on his terms. I can't change that. EL_C does not resort to personal attacks? As aptly pointed out in the revert article, "Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor." Whatever his intention may have been as the revert article pointed out it is insulting i.e. effectively a personal attack. However judging from his other posts when someone challenges his actions he believes himself to be infallible. For the record I am not infallible as already evidenced here by several admissions of personal error in this post. Apparently insulting new users is not a serious offense. EL_C can continue the practice unimpeded. What I read in another section you pointed out to me is that new users contribute significantly to the project and should not be driven away by heavy handed action. However, in practice it appears to be more important to protect an administrator who may be acting outside the guidelines. In practice new users should expect to be attacked by some administrators and should just keep their mouths shut and move on. Inappropriate behavior by an administrator is acceptable because he is an administrator and has a hard job. If I am missing something here please tell me. NYerkes 03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are still judging all admins by your one interaction with this user. In fact, you are judging this user on this one action. If you read one of my earlier posts i did note that he is awaiting your response to his admitedly leading question. New users do contribute significantly to the project and that is the whole point of the bite essay. No-one is trying to protect the administrator, no-one has taken sides here. You are still to discuss the problems with his conduct, with him. In practice your last three posts are identical. I understand that you feel aggrieved by his reversions. Yes, they went against the spirit of the Wiki guidelines.

No-one has tried to hush this up. Everyone who has responded to you has asked you to talk on his talk page about this, you have, once, to which El_C is awaiting you response. You should discuss it with him on his talk page and not here. Then, you should move on. It is easy for things on wikipedia to be blown up out of proportion. I suggest you discuss it there and then move on. I think this discussion has been exhausted here. We are going in circles. I hope you continue to edit wikipedia and that you enjoy your time on wikipedia from now on. Woodym555 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, when I noticed as you pointed out the discussion going in circles which in opinion meant my remedies were exhausted I sent a email to Jimbo Wales. Whether he reads the letter or not is up to him. His procedure requires that attempts to remedy the situation be exhausted before contacting him. This has been going nowhere for sometime now. In the letter to Mr. Wales I answered EL_C's leading question which he could have just as easily answered himself. I do not block the registry data on any of the over 1000 generic domains I own. I own the photographs. I own the domain. I do not use that domain for commercial purposes though at this point I might as well. I am building another non-commercial website to document the reconstruction of a 13th century Buddhist temple that was destroyed during an ancient war with Burma. Though I am not Buddhist, I was asked to photograph and shoot video of the project by the Abbot of the temple who has become a friend. The temple has a fascinating history particularly the disposition of the original Buddha image. Most of the image is gone but in the late 1800s the face plates were discovered buried near the site. Today they rest in a government museum. The original image was called the Buddha of 1000 bolts because the plates were fastened not welded. I have as yet unedited documentation of the original 10 meter tall bronze Buddha image and the reproduction that was cast including the techniques used to make the moulds and smelt the bronze. In addition to those two I have other domains that are commercial and photos from those are not linked to Wikipedia. For the record good generic domains have built in traffic due to natural type in. Such is the case with that domain. I do believe the individual photos I linked to are relevant and added to the users experience. I have also been shown photographs of what I determined was an engine from a WWII Japanese KI-27 that was found in the jungle of Northern Thailand. A little research revealed it was likely the mount of a Thai pilot who was shot down during WWII. I am trying to get approval to retrieve the engine and look for the remains of the aircraft and pilot. Thais as do people in most other cultures find comfort when the location of a deceased loved one's body is known. If approval comes I will be photographing and shooting video to document the expedition.

From what I read of the rules, linking to photographs where the owner does not want to give up the copyright is acceptable if the material enhances the user experience. I do not want to give up my copyrights though any written copy I provide is free for the taking as was the case with the deleted material. That said, watch what happens when I put that information on EL_C's talk page. I will likely be further insulted and will likely hear a justification for deleting all my posts whether linked photos or otherwise. I enjoy telling people about my adopted home Thailand whether for free or for profit. I can add copy and articles without the addition of photographs if Wikipedia decides visual material isn't important if it produced by an editor who does not wish to give up his copyright but even the written copy is likely to be viewed as suspect since I own a number of domains and websites and have already been identified at least by this particular individual as a vandal even though that was not my intent and in fact may not have been my action. Meanwhile for reasons unknown, other organizations such as Motor Books and the Double Star Group both of which are commercial entities one of which purely so are permitted to continue to extensively link to Wikipedia unimpeded.

That said, nothing further will be gained by discussing this. If Lord EL_C decides I am a vandal as appears to be the case Wikipedia can do just as well with my contributions or anyone else's contribution he deems unworthy.NYerkes 04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)