User talk:Right Brain

Please stop adding unsourced, POV statements into entries. — ceejayoz talk 00:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct, it is not my place to remove "offensive or inconvenient" information. It is, however, my place as an editor of Wikipedia to remove unsourced original research that counts as NPOV violation. — ceejayoz talk  05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Your statements are totally unfounded and unverifiable. Claiming that Lidle 'lost control' of his aircraft when the crash is still under investigation is blatantly false, and not only slanders Cirrus but insults Lidle. Please take care in 'adding' to Cirrus articles in the future. ericg &#9992; 00:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Violation of three-revert rule at Cirrus Design
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--Slowking Man 02:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

edits to Cirrus Design
You've been making dozens of edits to this article, and you're not citing your sources. Doing so is one of the cornerstones of wikipedia. If you can't support your claims about the company and their products with links or print references, they can't be taken seriously. I don't love Cirrus aircraft, but your edits to the article are downright slander unless you can back them up. Also, the aircraft are FAA approved. If you have a problem with their safety, that falls far more squarely on the shoulders of the certification process than it does the manufacturer.

Coherence is good as well if you are to be taken seriously. You've been claiming that the "poorly design tail section that does allow sufficient rudder control at slow speeds" - reading this as it is written, this sounds like a properly designed tail, the opposite from what it seems you were intending. "An alternate design submitted to the FAA when the Cirrus failed the spin recovery test." is an incomplete sentence and doesn't have a subject; it's totally incomprehensible. If you want your edits to bring the article to a neutral point of view, you need to support your claims with references that other editors can follow, and you need to divest yourself of whatever emotional involvement you seem to be showing in the topic. ericg &#9992; 02:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)