User talk:CFFan116

To be used

Stop your disruptive editing
OK, you have some gall stating that the articles on Yadollah Javadpour and Jalil Zandi are "unprofessionally written." For instance, let us look at one of your more egregious errors. You changed the Yadollah Javadpour article to link the reference to a Su-20 (which Javadpour shot down for his second confirmed kill) to redirect to the Su-27. You obviously know not a whit about what you write. The Iraqis long used the Su-20, an aircraft that faught during the major air war portion of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980/81. On the other hand, the Su-27 was never exported to or used by the Iraqis. Indeed, it did not come online with the Soviet air force until 1985, meaning it pretty well missed the bulk of the air battle. This mistake, more than anything else, is totally unprofessional.

That said, I believe the articles in question read just fine, thank you very much. Your changes are cosmetic, at best, and just plain poor English, at worst. The articles have been vetted and tended by other better editors than yourself. This includes user Diako1971 who is, as far as I can tell, the closest wikipadia is going to get to an expert on this subject matter.

So why don't you just leave well enough alone. Or learn to write better.

PS: If you have done any research on wikipedia, you will find that one of the obvious weakness of its articles is the quality of writing. Try to be part of the solution, not the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.47.104 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My method of editing may have room for improvement, but I'm not sure how my English would be "poor", as you put it, given that I grew up in an English speaking society. Though if you pointed out anything wrong with it besides your apparent disagreement with the use of semicolons it might have been helpful. Admittedly I was a bit rash in some of my responses and I'm sorry about that. I'm not used to having my edits be undone, even if this is a secondary account.


 * In regards to the Su-27, I meant to link to Sukhoi Su-17. If you were like me, and you clicked on that link (Su-20), you would be compelled to make that fix, because I as an editor don't like redirects. Maybe I'm just overly obsessive. Nonetheless it was a careless mistake on my part and I should have been more careful. That aside, the articles don't suit my idea of "well enough". They're only starter class on WikiProject Iran, and their perspective doesn't seem to match Wikipedia's standard of being from a neutral standpoint. I don't know about you but "most successful pilot of all the air combats" doesn't sound neutral, let alone professional. After I send this message I'll try to tackle those issues one more time. If you revert the changes I make again without a proper explanation or discussion I'm going to notify the administration for their input. Thanks for your time. CFFan116 (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

--

You want proof of your poor English?

I like when you edited the F-22 article. Remember that one. You edited this: "emotional lability and neurological changes" to read like this: emotional "liability and neurological changes."

Obviously you have no idea what Lability means, as it is not Liability.

Growing up in English is no guarantee, whatsoever, of having the ability to write well in that language. My dear Lord, look at most of the United States!

And "successful" is very much a neutral word, because it can be determined by statistics and numbers. One is successful or not, most especially when it comes to shooting down airplanes.

You use a raft of imprecise and weaselly words.

So ... just stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.192.197 (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

--

What about other F-14 pilots, like the ones who were in the U.S. Navy? They might not have as much aerial combat experience as their counterparts in the IRIAF, but I don't see how that makes them less successful. Success and war don't agree with each other in my head. It's like describing a mercenary.

A mistake I made editing a different article is irrelevant. And shallow in my opinion. Besides that, and whatever disagreements over the way some words are used do you have any serious issues with my writing? CFFan116 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) -

What about other F-14 pilots? Do any other, in the history of flying F-14s, have more kills than Zandi? No. He is a fighter pilot and flying ace and they have, since the first dogfight, used total kills to determine who is the very best. What you think "in my head", your opinion, does not matter.

The mistake you made in another article, the second I have pointed out, is not irrelevant or shallow, it is evidence that you are not a good editor. These are facts. You are wrong or lazy (checking facts) or both. Your style tends to include turns of phrases like: "he is considered" and "associated with the F-14". Considered ... by who? What is this nebulous phraseology mean? And associated with the F-14? Pray tell, what is the association? Could you be less precise.

I know the truth can hurt, but I'm not concerned with your feelings. What I am concerned with is well written and factual wikipedia articles (of those that I am interested in.)

Please refrain from ruining good entries because you have some idea of what "professional" is. I have a tip for you, wikipedia isn't professional, and neither are you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.192.197 (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't get over how those things are written. If you think "most successful F-5 pilot ever" is part of a well written article you have to be completely delusional. And also "most successful" "at all the air combats". Don't you think there would a smarter way to write that? It doesn't seem as if you're interested in well written articles as much as you are resistant to change.


 * In one of your edit summaries you stated that "the only reason to use a semicolon is to show that you have been to college". That in itself is an opinion. And yet my opinions apparently don't matter. Makes perfect sense! CFFan116 (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well then ... get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.192.197 (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For someone who edits on Wikipedia, that's quite a selfish thing to say. You probably aren't aware of how this site works. CFFan116 (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)