User talk:Bielasko

Sorry
I was trying to collaborate ... but after this. ...I prefer stopping to the whole world with his ignorance. Sorry again


 * It's Bill you have to say sorry to, not me. Also, just learn from your own mistake, as we all do. Another thing is, if you're not good at editing in English, I would suggest that you go back to the language you are most comfortable with - Spanish, on the Spanish version of Wikipedia. Otherwise, you run the risk of offending more people with your impatience and caustic remarks. --Dave1185 (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: "If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I will add it to my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me, unless I don't respond when a response is expected (normally within 24 hours, unless the issue is urgent). This helps keep discussions in one place and makes them easier to read and follow." --Dave1185 (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing, you asked me a rather silly question: "Do I understand Spanish?" My answer: "Of course not!" Otherwise, I would have edited on the Spanish version of Wikipedia, right? Why? It is because I don't know Spanish and I don't know how to edit on the Spanish version of Wikipedia, the protocol and culture there is totally different from that of English Wikipedia. Kapish? (PS: You do not have to reply me on my discussion page, per above note!) --Dave1185 (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Dave1185:

If you don’t know nothing about Spain, or its language... Why you think that you know everything of a Spanish company? Unlike the Anglo-Saxons, the majority of the Europeans know something about other European languages. What it is really "caustic" is the attitude of scorn to things what you do not know. A more positive attitude, must be, first to obtain information about the topic, and to discuss it if you disagree ... ah ... and  collaborate to enrich both our knowledge.

It is curious that many achievements, inventions, and Spanish successes are omit in the English wikipedia though these are documented with references. Might you say to me why that things are omitted or distort?

For your information I can tell you a pair or three things.

1/ the 31st August of 1996 was the Maiden flight of the Spanish prototype of the Eurofighter 2000 built by CASA. (before CASA joined to EADS in 1999) You can read about this fact in English, in the following link: 

2/ EADS is a Consortium (please read this definition), and in this consortium, EADS-CASA takes part in the 13% of development and  production for all Eurofighter aircraft. You can read about this fact in English, in the following link: 

3/ The Spanish jet-engine builder company ITP also takes part in the 13% of development and  production of the  Eurojet   EJ200  engine for all Eurofighter aircraft. ITP lead EJ200's TVC Thrust Vectoring Control  nozzle project. You can read about this fact in English, in the following links:  

If you are a “plain truth” lover like me, ( and  I would like that you  were that ) ..you must be correct the CASA article appropriately.

Cordial greetings


 * Too long, didn't read. Oh yes, Spanish for me is really something incomprehensito and I do not profess that I know anything of it, at all. But one thing is certain, if you want to learn something, you have to ask others or take a self-help tutorial given by others (such as the Welcome section I had given to you but you deleted it, so it's reallynot my fault that you are not learning anything, at all). Another thing is, I am not really a truth seeker; however, I like to read articles based on neutral point of view, per Neutral point of view. Also, I would go to the article page to discuss things with the other editors than to be chit-chating here like this with you. No offense to you but this is not really productive, at all. --Dave1185 (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * joking aside. .you have not explained to me why you do not accept the Eurofighter and the A400M as products of EADS-CASA. or ..Which is the reason for which you deleted the photo of the Spanish Eurofighter?


 * Perhaps I didn't make myself clear to you, so once again... GO TO THE ARTICLE PAGE OF "EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON" and discuss with the other editors~! And if you cannot understand English, I'd suggest you go back to the Spanish version of Wikipedia and save us all the trouble. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you have shown me that you have no idea of aircraft, or aircraft industry, or anything. The only thing you have done is destroy the things that have made others, just to annoy. I hope you get all the bad karma that you sow.Bielasko (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Quod erat demonstrandum! You do that again on my discussion page and I will see to it that you get reported to Wikipedia Adminstrator noticeboard for harrassing me, you have been warned~! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now ...writing runing ... :-D ...JUDASSSSSS Bielasko (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you enjoed with this game? ..or what?  :-D Bielasko (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dave1185 (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * who can remove that template? ...and why you have inssert that?Bielasko (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Kira Chinmoku  ( T, ¤ ) 21:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Kira Chinmoku  ( T, ¤ ) 22:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism or dubious contnet, just a good-faith editor trying to do his own thing his way. I've tried explaining that company articles are to cover primarily the most current entity, but he just won't listen. I've posted the relevant guideline regrding company articles on Talk:EADS CASA. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The edits by Bielasko are beginning to resemble that of a Disruptive editor, I might have to send him to AIV/ANI for further actions should he carry on to behave in such a way. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Potential 3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Dave1185 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop your personal attack!
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Dave1185 (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars
Hello Bielasko, I have been asked to look at the recent activities on EADS CASA and have decided to protect the page from editing. Can I ask you to make you case on the article talk page so a consensus on the way forward can be reached. Please note that protecting the page in its current state is not an endorsement either way of the contents. I can appreciate your frustrations when involved in an edit war but I must warn you about personal attacks on other editors particularly your remarks on Dave1185s talk page and the article talk page, if you attack other editors you may be blocked from editing. It would really help if you could explain your position on the article talk page so we all understand your concerns and could probably reach a compromise or consensus. Thanks for your co-operation. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

...