Jump to content

User talk:Flybd5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flybd5 (talk | contribs) at 14:14, 23 January 2008 (→BD-10 image). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mixed Votes

I find very interesting your explanation of mixed votes in Puerto Rico. Although I agree with you that Rossello's challenges to the "pivasos" were clearly based on political grounds, I do have my doubts about the constitutionality of the mixed votes. I understand that these votes are legal under the current election system in Puerto Rico, but several lawyers are arguing that the mixed votes should be eliminated because they in fact violate the "one man, one vote" doctrine issued by the Supreme Court of the United States.

How is that so? Because by voting under the icon of the PIP and later voting besides the picture of Acevedo the voter has in fact voted twice. The two votes are:

  1. The vote for Acevedo as Governor.
  2. The vote under the party logo to keep the party enscribed for the next election.

As you can see the mixed votes have the effect of casting a double vote. However, this was not the challenge brought by Rosselló. Yet even members of the PPD are arguing for the elimination of the mixed votes in Puerto Rico because a federal court in the future might deem them unconstitutional. It is a very interesting debate that might me resolved in the next couple of years.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 18:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The vote to inscribe the party has no effect on the result of the election, hence it does not violate the One Man, One Vote doctrine. There are two different issues here --- party membership and the actual votes. The only reason the NPP and PPD want to eliminate the mixed vote is to make it harder for the PIP to remain a political party. The federal courts have no jurisdiction over this matter. Flybd5 21:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XL8RTION

I am going to leave this childish diatribe by this user on my talk page as an example of what happens when people allow their egos to rule their actions on Wikipedia, rather than following policy and guidelines. Who knows, someone may learn something from it. The user posted complaints in WP:PAIN and other places, all of which were summarily dismissed... So much for that. Flybd5 05:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Rossello

  • Please do no lecture me on names and on grammar. Many articles on this site have names italicized. The article does not belong to you. Please do not add any further comments to my discussion page--XLR8TION 01:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you do not wish to have comments placed about your editing practices in your personal area, place a query in the discussion area of the article before editing it in a style that does not conform to the rest of the article.Flybd5 00:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently you are an imbecile. I have reported you to administrators for harassment. Please be aware let us not talk about manners when you clearly lack them in your genes. --XLR8TION 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One key note, you have personally attacked others on other discussion boards for their political beliefs. It's apparent you are a brainwashed right-winger who apparently is against the concept of Puerto Rican identity. By attacking those who go against your twisted beliefs, I only can say is that it truly masks any true talent that you might have had as a writer. Do not post anything on my discussion page anymore or you will be reported again. Comprende?--XLR8TION 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will be reported for an on-line threat idiot. Congratulations on being blocked. Merry Christmas moron!--XLR8TION 04:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported sicko. Threats are illegal on-line as well as off-line. Have a Merry X-mas sicko. --XLR8TION 04:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been locked. Please mind WP:CIVIL and discuss each change individually. ---J.S (T/C) 18:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas!!!! and happy holidays! -hotspot (come say hi) 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Image

Watch over this page and our edits, you are right, should not be so insulting, we dont need to spread more hate. -George

Unsourced image

Do not add Image:Saddam Hussein iraq mission un portrait.jpg to Saddam Hussein again unless you add proper source information to the image. It is disruptive. J Di talk 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been attributed. If you don't like the image, then find another appropriate one. Reverting to the previous image is more disruptive. Flybd5 23:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image is attributed in multiple places on the Internet and the attribution is being used by multiple media outlets all over the place, including Scholastic's web site, Art History Club's web site, [www.academickids.com Academic Kid's Encyclopedia web site], Arikah.com's web site and many others. If you don't like the image, find another one, but stop removing the image because you don't agree with the attribution. By just reverting it all you accomplish is adding more fuel to the fire. Flybd5 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has got nothing to do with my opinion of the image. My only concern is that the image you want to add to the article did not have proper source information when you added it, and it still doesn't. If you want to ignore my edit summaries and the warnings, carry on, but it'll only get you blocked. Please add proper source information to the image before adding it back to the article. J Di talk 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source is on the record of the upload of the image, exactly as EVERYONE ELSE on the image is sourcing and attributing it. It came from the Iraq Mission to the UN when Hussein was in power. This isn't a matter of your opinion, it's a matter of fact. You are adding fuel to the fire by reverting to an insulting image of a head of state. If you don't like the image, FIND ANOTHER APPROPRIATE ONE, but don't revert images just because you have an opinion about its source. Flybd5 23:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has got nothing to do with my opinion. This page does not specify the image's source. That is where source information needs to go. If you can't add it, don't add the image back. J Di talk 23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source is right there in front of you, along with the independent verification info. Leave your opinion out of it. Flybd5 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, this is not about my opinion. I couldn't care less about what image is used in the article. Have you read commons:Commons:Licensing? Read that, add the source information to the image. J Di talk 23:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I DID. Get off my talk page already, go bother someone else! Flybd5 00:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

Any time! Not a problem! Nice facts! I just made some minor fixes here and there. The only thing is the plane thing, the link you supplied, being a comment page is unsuitable as a valid resource. True as it may be, the fact is kind of subjective too. I dunno. Good night! --Stux 09:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link I supplied for the plane is the record page on the Guinness site. Comment page? Maybe you're getting the wrong page. As to being subjective, it's the recognized world record, there's only one, and the plane belongs to me. :) Flybd5 11:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! No, sorry it didn't hit me that there are two plane entries that you had touched: the one I was talking about was the "Puerto Ricans clap when an airplane lands" one that's commented out. That was the one that led me to a comment page. The guiness link is just fine! And you own the plane!? Seriously!? Niiiiiiiice. Saying things like that might get you ppl to ask for rides or somethin ;) --Stux 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I get it. That's why I left the entry commented out so it wouldn't show. The statement is wrong anyway. We only clap when we land, and then again only after turbulence. It's actually animated praying, you know that. :) Yes, I own the little pocket rocket, and sorry, no rides unless you have a strong rope. :) Flybd5 19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

(Feliz Año Nuevo)


Happy New Year from Tony the Marine 02:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world this coming year.

(P.S. You've been doing a wonderful job on the DYK-Puerto Rico, a section I started a long time ago. Keep up the good work.)

Thank you, Feliz Año Nuevo para ti y tus seres queridos también. :) Flybd5 08:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source of BD-5 info

Do you have a source for the estimate of ~30 BD-5's currently flying? --rogerd 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I am the director of the BD-5 Network worldwide. I run the BD-5 Network and I own the BD-5 web site as well as the BD-5 mailing list. I am the keeper of such statistics. There are some five jets flying on a regular basis (as regularly as BD-5J's can be operated), and some 25 recip and turboprop BD-5's flying around the world, some regularly, some not so regularly. Flybd5 19:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Christmas tree-7534301.jpg

Hello Flybd5, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Christmas tree-7534301.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Flybd5. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 11:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ITIL v3

You seem to feel very deeply about the detail of the ITIL v3 article, and have made some offensive remarks on that article's talk page and in your edit summaries. Please do not assume that I have any like or dislike of ITIL, or the refresh project. So far as I'm concerned that article is just another one of the (far too) many poorly written IT articles. When you have finished writing your sales brochure—for that's what it is—I shall review it again and I shall make whatever changes I feel are necessary for it to more closely resemble an encyclopedia article. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued uninformed opinion has been noted. If you insist on editing the article based on your total lack of knowledge of ITIL, I will report it as vandalism. Flybd5 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have now claimed that you have made a report of vandalism against me Talk:ITIL v3. Where have you made this report, or to whom? --Malleus Fatuarum 00:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on ITIL v3

I've removed your comments on my talk page concerning ITIL v3. If you'd like to discuss the issues, please follow the relevant policies and guidelines. I, like Malleus Fatuarum, have found some of your remarks to be inappropriate. --Ronz 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the comments in the correct page, your discussion area. Your opinion of my remarks towards Eric's behaviour are of no concern to me. Flybd5 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you follow WP:DR. --Ronz 00:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are being reported for vandalism and harassment. Flybd5 00:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oct 2007

3RR

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in ITIL v3. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Shot info 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User User:Ronz is making arbitrary edits without any supporting information and without discussion. Reversing those edits is not a violation of 3RR. Flybd5 00:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. You can't just invent excuses. -- Fyslee / talk 03:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Admins cannot invent excuses to violate policy. This is not a "Do as I say, not as I do." community. Flybd5 12:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIKIQUETTE

What is this policy? It doesn't look like a official Wikipedia policy. Can I suggest that you review WP:AGF in recent matters? Thanks Shot info 00:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's Wikipedia:Etiquette. Flybd5 00:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ie/ WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. Just chill out, it's only Wikipedia and the world isn't going to end tomorrow. Let the tags stand, if other editors agree with you, then they will edit appropriately. At the moment your possessiveness over the article is making random editors think that you are hinderence to the problem rather than a solution. Shot info 00:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think other users should have to live up to the same rules? I shouldn't have to remind anyone that contentious edits should not be posted before discussing them. Wholesale deletions based on uninformed opinion is antagonistic, and unnecessarily so. There is a rather large difference between being possessive and insisting the rules be applied equally to all. And where do you stand on stalking of other users? Flybd5 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, your not chilling out here. This creates noise and other editors begin to click on your contribs to see what else you have done. No stalking but normal Community behaviour. Your actions strike me as WP:OWN. Ronz has not done "wholesale deletions" he deleted two links for pete's sake and gave reasons why. Your reverts with no/poor explaination smacks of editwarring and possessiveness. PS, removing warnings is not normally a good thing. Shot info 00:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Examine the deletions. What he deleted is the links to the official accreditors for ITIL (basic information about the framework and its structure) and the links to the OFFICIAL ITIL web site contracted by the owner of the knowledge.~If you won't apply the policies equally across the board I will not allow warnings on this issue on my talk page. Flybd5 01:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN

I'll write a report, since you don't want to have any evidence of your disclosure or spamming here on your talk page. --Ronz 01:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained exactly why it is not COI. My site is encyclopedic about the BD-5. It's purpose is to be an authoritative information resource about the aircraft and its history. No commercial interest, no motives in violation of policy. Flybd5 01:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Flybd5 --Ronz 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the new editor and the links in the Spanish Wikipedia, I thought it best to write a spam report: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.bd5.com. --Ronz 03:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another place to document your harassment and stalking of me? Time to take action as well. Flybd5 12:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you follow WP:DR instead, but it's your choice. --Ronz 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a dispute, it's a complaint about you. Flybd5 12:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to try WP:WQA. --Ronz 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary, you were told to take a Wikibreak. Good idea for you to pay attention to that suggestion. Flybd5 (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Review WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer in particular 1, 2, and especially 6. I'm not suggesting that your page is spam, but in the context of Wikipedia linkspam, your placement of your website into the BD5 article(s) is. Shot info 02:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm cool with that. Let's go through each one. Item 1: Have you found any evidence that I am using links to my web site for personal promotion? Given that I don't sell anything on my web site and that it is operated as a free information source, that takes care of most of the rest of that one. Item 2 is out of scope when the information on the site referenced is not within the scope of Wikipedia, too much information, etc. Item 6 is to use the talk page, what we are doing here, but what User:Ronz did not do, which unnecessarily led to all of this. Have you pointed this out to him? Shoot first, ask questions later is not proper Wikipedia policy for anyone, let alone people who are so-called spam cops. That's just being lazy for not wanting to start discussions and then have to track them all. That's wrong. That's why all cops err on the side of caution. I appreciate the suggestion but pointing out things like WP:SPAM without justifying exactly why you are doing so serves no purpose. Just telling me that some could interpret something as spam in general is of no use to me. Flybd5 02:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget #5. Should I write up a spam report to get more opinions on these issues? I'd like to learn how to do an AdSense search. --Ronz 02:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's very childish of you. What's next, a search of every external link on Wikipedia to blow away anything that uses Adsense at the other end? What's the limit? I make $30 a month that way. Pays for the hosting service so users can enjoy the benefit of free content. Knock yourself out and write anything you want, pal. That'll keep you busy and maybe you won't continue blowing away valid content and creating more unnecessary disruption and arguments. Flybd5 02:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#How_to_identify_spam_and_spammers. Looks like you also have a business relationship with http://www.bd5store.com. Credit to you for not restoring that link. --Ronz 02:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using your same loose logic it might look to me as if you have a business relationship with Shot info, perhaps even a sockpuppet relationship. But I wouldn't make such wild leaps of logic or accusations, not a prudent thing to do because it might make me look very foolish by running at the mouth without having any facts to back up my words. I will, however, take a moment to fill you in on some facts: bd5store.com belongs to a type 1 diabetic amputee who could not fulfill his childhood dream of flying a BD-5, so he made a deal with the designer of the BD-5, Jim Bede, to license the BD-5 assembly drawings. He digitized them and became the only one to offer those to the world. He asked me to place a link, and I did. Unfortunately, life has not been good to him, every time I talk to him he seems to have lost another part of his body. Is that what you call a "business relationship"? So, what's next, accusing me of satanism? Flybd5 03:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about your friend. Thanks for clarifying the relationship with his site. --Ronz 03:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could have done this from the beginning and I would have gladly answered all your queries and doubts. I have nothing to hide and no ulterior commercial motives. Flybd5 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Possibly unfree Image:Bd5j.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bd5j.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 13:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flybd5&oldid=186343542"