User talk:Michael Shrimpton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Wikipedia. I've noticed your interest in the Me 262 article, but I'm afraid we need citations for your claims. Also, some of your statements have removed important information, such as the Germans lagging behind in high-heat metals. If you could provide some reliable sources for your claims it would be very helpful.--LWF 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Gloster Meteor
I am removing the following: (John W R Taylor, Aircraft Aircaft, Hamlyn, 1974,. 4th ed., pages 104-9, see also the standard reference works on the Gloster Meteor listed below, which give the delivery dates of the first aircraft in June 1944 to 616 Squadron). The German Propaganda Ministry claimed that the Me 262 was first, but the most recent research by the RAF Museum suggests October 1944 at as a the most realistic date for service entry (conversation with the author). The Museum publicly claims a 'combat' in July, but this turns out on inquiry to have been a chance encounter by an Me 262 prototpye on test, which does not seem to have been armed. There is no reliable record of it opening fire, although it may have entered into a mock dogfight with the unarmed Mosquito. On any view this was scarcely operational service.
The Meteor first entered service with 616 Squadron the preceding month, but several weeks were taken for work-up.
There are Nazi era records suggesting combat with the USAAF in August 1944, but Nazi era records are vulnerble to falsification for propaganda purposes and no one appears to have done a reconciliation with USAAF records.
The respected Editor of Janes All the World's Aircraft John W R Taylor, with the aid of respected researcher Charles Gibbs-Mith exhaustively analysed RAF and Luftwaffe records in the mid-1960s and published their conclusions in 1967 (Aircraft Aircraft, cited supra, the book was aimed at a general readership but is well-written and researched by the world's most published aviation author at that time). They place service entry for the Gloster Meteor Mk 1 as July 27 1944. The claim that the Me 262 was first has been endlessly recycled but is simply untrue, indeed it could even be said that the Me 262 was never truly operatoinal, as the Germans lagged behind Great Britain in advanced nickel alloy research and were never able to make a reliable turbojet engine. Moreover the Me 262 was unstable in engine out conditions, which it experienced fairly often, since the Jumo 004 was normally good for about 12 hours (and that included the delivery flight). In practice the Me 262 was a single-mission airplane, which would normally be expected to remain operational after an intensive day of combat.
All of this is an argument and a POV that is best addressed on the discussion page of the Gloster Meteor. Take your arguments there. Bzuk 02:34 31 January 2007 (UTC).~
I have stuck to the facts and provided references from a very reputable source, what is your problem? The world's forst jet fighter was the Gloster Meteor, period. If you are content to allow Wikipedia to be the vehicle for unverified German propaganda claims more than 60 years after the end of World War Two, so be it. If your interest in the facts is genuine, then check my sources, before removing accurate text under a specious pretext, in breach of your rules, which ephasise objectivty.
How about phrasing it along the lines of, "Later research shows that, contrary to common belief, the Gloster Meteor was the first operational jet fighter" and then providing a citation. Rather than getting contentious about it, we could actually get something done without having to resort to things like mediation.--LWF 04:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I've been prosecuting a trial. This formulation sounds good to me, citation for Taylor I(an immensely reputable aviation author, of over 180 books) is given, I've also made some points on the Meteor discussion page.
[edit] Me 262
Please read WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not the place for editorializing or arguing. Please stick to the facts. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gloster Meteor and Me 262 claims
Michael- stop this constant revisions on the article pages, it is considered vandalism. I asked you to take the issue to the relevant discussion pages. That's the place to hash out controversies. Bzuk 12:34 6 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Reply
Michael, I have no interest in getting into a spitting contest with you. I have stated continually that when there is a contentious issue, take it to the discussion page first. I also have no abiding interest in which aircraft flew first- check the records of the article and you will see who is the orginator of the Me 262 and Gloster Meteor articles. I would refer you to some basic tenets of Wikipedia, use the following:
- Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them;
- Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations;
- Stay cool when the editing gets hot;
- Avoid edit wars and follow the three-revert rule;
- Act in good faith;
- Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point;
- Assume good faith on the part of others, and
- Be open and welcoming.
Bzuk19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Broken edit
I am dispassionate with regard to the issue of the world's first jet fighter, and I do not intend this to be offensive. Please don't break the article in your rush to change it back to the version you prefer. Such action evidences more of a desire to win an argument than to contribute to the content of an encyclopedia. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The three revert rule
Please be advised that you are eligible for blocking as you have contravened the 3RR dictum of Wikipedia on the Messerschmitt Me 262, Gloster Meteor and de Havilland Comet articles. Remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period (not calendar day); it also does not include self reverts, and reverts to deal with simple vandalism. In addition, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced is included in the rule. Administrators will look over and discuss whether a user has truly violated the three revert rule, and take appropriate blocking action if necessary. Bzuk19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
- I've taken a look over this situation, and have subsequently locket you from editing for a period of 24 hours, as per the three-revert rule. This in no way is an indication of my taking sides against you, or any indication of my being for or against your edits. It is only based upon the editing history of the Messerschmitt Me 262 article. After the 24 hours is expired, you are welcome to return to editing.
- I do, however, have this advice - and I am going to offer the same advice to the others involved in this conflict - 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."
- The best possible way of resolving this is to step back from editing these articles for some time, allow everyone to cool their jets, and perhaps later come to a civil agreement with the other editors, preferably on the talk pages of the articles involved, and then allow the sourced information agreed upon to be moved to the article.
- If any further improper editing is done by either side, step outlines in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes may have to be taken.
Michael, having been involved in a current Dogfight on the AVRO Arrow, site,you hve my sympathies.
There is a cottage industry in "buff books". The authors of these books feed off each others' conclusions, then quote each other in Wikipedia. The results can be hilarious.
As a barrister you are no doubt amused by those quasi legal warnings, delivered in BOLDTYPE. "STEPS to be taken",indeed...toddlers steps, p'haps?
Bill,RELAX. Consider the possibliity that you may be, on occasion, wrong.
Regards Opuscalgary 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] De Havilland Comet
I've added back the POV template to the De Havilland Comet article because it would seem to be obvious that there is a conflict here, with two opposing views. If you would like to add some sources to the statements in the article which you support, that would be appreciated, and would help resolve this issue. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Personal insults are not acceptable
I was cleaning up edits in a few articles when I noted some personal attacks you left in checkin logs [1][2][3]. These sorts of comments are not acceptable on the wikipedia, or, in my opinion, anywhere else. Please stop. Maury 04:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button 
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! HagermanBot 18:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fellow CDNS,this is silly stuff
Trevor, Bill, Maury, Relax.
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!) Artillery trumps files- big time.
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. count the disputes you are in( I'm at one) & rack it up. Please break clean, before the rest of the world assumes we have been "winter bit by the Wendigo..!"\ Opuscalgary 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC
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..... chaio Opuscalgary
Without drawing down 'Holy fire', Bill, please consider Michaels' argument.Precise dates for events in Nazi Germany , summer 1944-spring 1945, are OFTEN not verifiable.
Records were ALTERED to place, or remove, participants from events prosecuted.
German military staff were ordered to attend, slave labour conferences,for exzample, to render them complicit.
In order not to explain that someone was a powerless bystander at an event discussing slave labour, documentation ,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.This ,plus Michaels' explanations, means that a GERMAN late war record is a variant. My dad spent months interviewing, collating, etc inthe spring of 1945,just to help sort out 'not proved' from real monsters.
Michael, Bill, would you accept the Scottish verdict of 'not proven', given the nature of the evidence ? Bill, can we just close some of these disputes without jurisprudence? Regards
Opuscalgary 20:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Opuscalgary 20:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Crumbs
The Michael Shrimpton? I only ask because I used to work at the Immigration Appellate Authority as a typist, and Michael Shrimpton's dictations were generally more entertaining than those from the other adjudicators. -Ashley Pomeroy 15:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, definitely the same guy. Since first encountering him on Talk:De Havilland Comet I've become quite an aficionado of Mr Shrimpton's work - I wonder if any of his adjudications from the AIT are accessable anywhere? :) FiggyBee 18:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
