User talk:FrOg BoY 65

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page F4U-1 Corsair has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. AndrewrpTally-ho! 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates
Hi, I noticed that you have been linking some dates at XF4U Corsair recently. This practice is now deprecated. Please see WP:LINKING and WP:MOSNUM. Furthermore, there is an temporary Arbcom injunction on mass linking/delinking of chronological elements. I'm happy to respond to any inquiries you may have about the matter. Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

MiG 42
Do you have any reliable sources for this? Perhaps you are referring to Mikoyan Project 1.44?  Acroterion  (talk)  15:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS for policy on reliable sources. The source you added does not appear to meet those requirements; you should source from Aviation Week and Space Technology, Flight International or Jane's Defense Weekly, as there is a great deal of random speculation on the Internet on this kind of subject, almost all of it unusable or just plain wrong. Again, I believe you are confusing this with  Mikoyan Project 1.44. The aircraft as described is not credible; rocket power?   Acroterion  (talk)  16:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mig-42 Foxglove
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mig-42 Foxglove, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fictional Russian fighter; sole substantial reference originated in 1997 and probably relates to the Mikoyan Project 1.44.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge
I have proposed that XF4U Corsair be merged to F4U Corsair, as the XF4U article appears to confuse operational and prototype designations, offering no benefit as a content fork.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've redirected the article,a s there is no substantial information in the protoype article and it s references are either not useful or loop back to Wikipedia, which is not an acceptable source. Also, the MiG 42 article's source is some sort of game guide that's 12 years old and is not in any way a reliable source.   Acroterion  (talk)  16:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This makes no sense...
I don't understand why my article, "MiG 42 Foxglove" will be deleated even though it has referances. I also didn't copy the listed article in any way, so I don't see why it "copies" it. I have inserted a referance for the page, even though I didn't use it. Please help!
 * I've proposed it for deletion because you have provided no backup information from a reliable source. As I said above, Wikipedia requires that information be verifiable from a reliable source - in a case like this, a reliable source would be a publication like Aviation Week and Space Technology, Flight International, Jane's Defense Weekly or a publication of similar stature. The source you cited is more than twelve years old, far out of date, and appears to be something someone made up and posted on the Internet as part of a game guide. It is not a reliable source at all, and there is no evidence from reliable sources that the aircraft exists, or ever did.
 * The Mikoyan Project 1.44 project, however, is well-documented in reliable sources, and is probably what the source you've used was hearing rumors about in 1997. That article has multiple external links - a bibliography, in effect, that discuss the aircraft. Wikipedia is not a place to post speculation. The websites you've cited  appear to be purely speculative - not everything on the Internet is true, or intended to be taken literally. That's why multiple sources are required, and why speculation is proposed for deletion.   Acroterion  (talk)  01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What is a Bibliography?
I don't understand what a Bibliography is. Can you tell me?
 * A bibliography (we have an article about it - click that blue link) is essentially a list of books on a given subject. It can be a list for more in depth reading on a topic, a list that served as sources for an essay or book on a given subject, or both.   Acroterion  (talk)  01:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why?

 * I assume that you mean the merge proposal on XF4U Corsair. Wikipedia is a wiki, which means that nobody "owns" a given article, and permission is not needed to modify content, if the modification, merge or deletion is in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Nobody "stole" your work.  In the XF4U article, you essentially duplicated the already existing F4U Corsair article, which covered the history of the XF4U prototypes.  We only need or want one article on a given subject. Your article implied that the XF4U was produced as something more than a few prototypes (the "X" meant prototype) - that is not true. Once a few prototypes had been built and tested (the XF4U's), production started with the F4U's which were built in the thousands. No XF4U was used as anything other than a test plane. Your article was factually incorrect and duplicated sourced existing content.
 * Please keep in mind that Wikipedia involves the work of thousands of editors who have demanding standards for factual accuracy. Many of the editors who write on aircraft-related articles are experts in the field with extensive libraries of material. It's going to be hard to write something new and factually correct on virtually any aircraft-related article. I'd be happy to help you work within Wikipedia's guielines forcontributing new content, and to answer any questions you might have.  Acroterion  (talk)  01:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, Then...
I appoligize for accusing you of "stealing" my article. I never knew "X" meant test aircraft, and I guess I posted false facts. I appoligize for accusing you.
 * No problem, not taken personally. I'll be happy to help you with appropriate referencing.  Acroterion  (talk)  01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, you might find 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system interesting - it gives definitions of all the post 1962 US aircraft designations. For the pre-1962 US Navy designations, take a look at 1922 United States Navy aircraft designation system, which covers the Corsair, for instance, although it doesn't specifically mention the Navy's "X" prototype prefix. The Air Force used "X" for "experimental" and "Y" for "prototype." There's also List of NATO reporting names for fighters for Russian/Soviet aircraft.   Acroterion  (talk)  01:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of MiG 42 Foxglove
I have nominated MiG 42 Foxglove, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/MiG 42 Foxglove. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Acroterion  (talk)  00:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey!
Someone is deleting my referances on my article, MiG 42 Foxglove, and there are no referances! Who is doing this? This isn't fair, because I do in fact have referances but somebody is deleting them! Every time I return to my article to check on hints and other stuff, when I return to it, all of my referances are gone! What should I do?

It is not Fictional!
It keeps on saying the article I'm writing is fictional, though it is based on a real plane, and all the facts are true. How do I stop this?
 * Other editors are telling you that this is fictional. Your sources are from games. Please do not represent it as anything but a fictional aircraft, and please do not edit-war to pretend that it is real.  Acroterion  (talk)  22:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  Acroterion  (talk)  22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But I have seen an Actual Aircraft!
This is not fake though! They know nothing! I have actually seen one in real life. If the MiG 29 is not fictional, then this isn't!
 * Whether or not you think you've seen one is irrelevant. We can only include verifiable published facts. You have provided no verifiable evidence of its existence, and a personal assertion is not usable.   Acroterion  (talk)  22:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But the picture on the article, Mikoyan Project 1.44, the picture there is a picture of two Foxgloves. I just don't like my article having all of these negative comments about it, like purposed deletion and Fictional stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. I just think that this is a real plane, but editors don't, so it will have to stay fictional.
 * No, the image is of the Mikoyan Project 1.44 - which exists and is documented in numerous reputable publications. The MiG 42 does not exist according to any reputable source, and you're confusing the two.  Acroterion  (talk)  14:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I will stop this then. Maybe it is just a future design. But I think my facts will be based on it when the Foxglove is made. Or the MiG 42 is actually a MiG 1.44. I don't know, but I better stop this before getting into real trouble.
 * That's what I've been telling you - what you think is a MiG 42 is the 1.44. There's no law that says the numbering sequence has to continue, and the Mikoyan design bureau has had to change drastically after Sukhoi gained the upper hand.  Acroterion  (talk)  14:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the game I played, Jetfighter V, was inaccurate. That is where I got this plane from, and it calls them MiG 42 Foxgloves. Maybe they didn't try to write it that way, and the Foxgloves look just like MiG 1.44s. I don't know if I should delete this article or not. What I wonder, though, is maybe the MiG 1.44 is a test aircraft, and the Foxglove will be an advanced version.
 * I see. Some advice: Games are not valid sources for an encyclopedia, because they're fiction. There are some games that pride themselves on accuracy, but most don't, and none are an acceptable source of information in the real world. In the real world we rely on published information written by journalists and aviation experts, not game designers. Personally, I think the article should be redirected to Project 1.44, as it's a reasonable target. Jetfighter V dates to 2003, so it's based on rumors about the 1.44 that were available in, say, 2000. The 1.44 is the current designation and airplane in 2009.  Acroterion  (talk)  14:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So should I delete the article? How do I do it?
 * I can delete it, since I'm an administrator (although there are some Wikipedia-related reasons why I shouldn't, in this particular case). How about I redirect it to Mikoyan Project 1.44?  Acroterion  (talk)  15:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do it! I just want to get out of this mess before I am edit-blocked or something even worse... Honest to god... the whole world is sending me all of these messages, so just get it out of here!
 * Nobody's going to block you, and that's about the worst we can do. I stated in the deletion discussion that I believed you were sincere in your edits, if misguided. It's not easy starting our here, and I'd be happy to help you. I'll do the redirect and close the discussion per your request.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. You know what, you've been really helpful to me for the past few days. I am proud I actually met a friendly person online, which is you, of course. Now that article is gone, I don't feel pressured anymore, at least until I find a new idea. I will not try to start a conflict like this again, because it has caused so much trouble for you, me and many Wiki users. Thanks very much for your help. By the way, I deleted that "you stole my article!" section, because I feel very bad about how I treated you when you merged my first article. I see now that making a Wiki article is not a simple task.

What did I Vandalize?
What am I vandalizing, though?
 * I've removed the notice - it wasn't vandalism, just a stray sentence fragment in the article that the other editor mistook for vandalism or blanking..  Acroterion  (talk)  14:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it allowed?
Are you allowed to make up a topic you want to upload, or does it have to be real?
 * What do you think?
 * See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:NOTWEBHOST ... Yes, it has to be real, verifable, and reliably sourced.  Acroterion  (talk)  03:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)