User talk:XB70Valyrie/Archive1

Hi
Please feel free to add any comments or questions to my talk page.

Yes, I'm all over the airlines articles. Hope you like my additions.

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Tobyc75 (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I left the following on message on, in my opinion, a very short sighted reviewer's talk page.

"Trying to fathom how I must have obviously failed at communicating the "notability" of an association that represents 31 North American regional airlines and employing tens of thousands of people when there is schlock like this Bimini Island Air and this 24 Hour Fitness and this Air Cargo Carriers on wikipedia. Where have the authors of these "articles" established notability? I don't see one citation about how they were interviewed by the Public Broadcasting Service (the United States government-run television broadcasting company) or Fox News or any other notable source, what so ever. Yet, they're articles were published. In fact 24 Hour Fitness wouldn't even have a single outside citation unless I put it there. As pointed out by the Families of Continental Flight 3407 ( http://www.3407memorial.com/index.php/press-releases/186-flight-3407-families-encouraged-by-pilot-certification-proposal-challenge-dot-faa-omb-to-stand-up-to-regional-airlines-pressures ) RE: Colgan Air Flight 3407, most of the Regional Airline Association work is done behind closed door. It's a lobbying group. They don't like being in the public unless they have to be. Very little about how they manipulate regulations in order to make more money and actually circumvent safety is ever "published". I've added several more elements on "notability" to my article and have resubmitted it. But you know what, I've grown used to having to be 37 times better than everybody else that gets accepted just so I'm extended the same privilege. This is by far not the first time. Life's not fair and I thank you for once again proving that to me. Thank you for making an example out of me how so many wikipedia articles content sucks, so let's start making them 37 times better. Let's start with XB70Valyrie. Thank you.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)"--XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

New Article Creation on the Embattled Wikipedia
This is a note to myself.


 * To create an article without using the wizard:
 * Find an existing page where your (as yet uncreated) new article can sensibly be linked from
 * Create a link in that page to your intended new article, and save it. Your new link will appear in red.
 * Click on that red link. You should get a box containing the text "Before creating an article, please read Your first article." plus the normal edit box.
 * Type in your new article, preview, amend where necessary, and save
 * Go back to the page mentioned in item 1, refresh your browser: your new link should now appear in blue
 * Click that blue link to make sure that your new article is correctly reached

Just to add something you may find even easier: If you just type the name of your new article exactly as you want it, into the Wikipedia search box and click 'Go'. If the page does not exist then you will taken to a search page telling you that no such page could be found. At the bottom it will contain a red link of the page name you just searched for. Click on that and it will take you to the page with the normal edit box -- create as normal. This saves you having to insert a link into an exhausting page and click on it. Note: Page titles in Wikipedia are case sensitive, so be sure to get the capital letters right first time around. ;) Pol430  talk to me 23:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhhhhh yeeeeaaaaaah. ;-) --XB70Valyrie (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: personal attack
I was extremely sad and shocked when I saw a message on my talk page. I feel as if I was bullied just because I declined your submission. If you think I declined your article in error (because 75% of my editing takes place on a mobile phone) then politely ask me to take another look. Personal attacks are giant no nos, and I'm pretty sure everyone above would agree. I'm sorry that I made you sad. I really am. But please carefully read wp:npa, because bullying and harassment are strictly prohibited here. Thank you. → B  music  ian  01:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have the wikipedia mobile app as well. It's limiting. Perhaps reviewing articles should be an area no longer pursued through a mobile app. I appreciate your passion for editing quality work and volunteering your time. And, I appreciate your suggestion of an appellate note left on your talk page. I left an appellate note on User talk:Tobyc75 page. He did not reply. I copy/pasted that appellate note to your page. You erased it. My article was clearly rooted in notability when he declined it, and it was anchored even deeper in notability when you declined it. I had citations from the United States Congress and even the Federal Aviation Administration in my article, in addition to the pre-existing links to Fox News, PBS and Business Week, etc. That being said, there will come a time when circumstances will work anybody's last nerve, even a professional pilot's. The way I saw this is that I was surrounded by a culture of irrational declination followed by a systematic, authoritarian silence. Enough to make me question even if I wanted to continue my work with wikipedia. After the hours I'd put into this project it was being systematically and arbitrarily declined. If one is told you need to put a square peg in a square hole, and then do so, only to be told you're using the wrong peg, expect any person's normally benevolent disposition to change. That's just the way the human system works. I accept your reply that it could have been your phone app that limited the scope of your review. The article has now been published with help from other wikipedians.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I wasn't the person who removed your message however, but it was removed by someone else. Please don't hesistate to contact me for any further assistance regarding your article. We appreciate the time and effort you used to write your article - Wikipedia is a permanent work in progress. → B  music  ian  02:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I found your comments on my talk page rather abrupt, rude and arrogant. I don't know you and have never interacted with you in the past.  I don't know why you think you're being singled out or why you feel that you have to be 37 times better than anyone else.  I wasn't ignoring you, I just felt it would be better to wait a few days before I responded.  But I see that things seem to have been resolved.  Thanks for the effort that you put into the article. Tobyc75 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In the light of your declination of my article which had (in my opinion and in the guidelines of said wikipedia article) established notability on the grounds of it...not being notable, I'll let those who read it be the judge. Was my appellate message abrupt, rude and/or arrogant? In the interest of fairness, at this point my submitted Regional Airline Association article had links to Fox News, Public Broadcasting Service and The Wall Street Journal in it. Here's that message...

Talk page title: ''"Perhaps I need an education in the industry I'm already a professional in (In German)"

Trying to fathom how I must have obviously failed at communicating the "notability" of an association that represents 31 North American regional airlines and employing tens of thousands of people when there is schlock like this Bimini Island Air and this 24 Hour Fitness and this Air Cargo Carriers on wikipedia. Where have the authors of these "articles" established notability? I don't see one citation about how they were interviewed by the Public Broadcasting Service (the United States government-run television broadcasting company) or Fox News or any other notable source, what so ever. Yet, their articles were published. In fact 24 Hour Fitness wouldn't even have a single outside citation unless I put it there. As pointed out by the Families of Continental Flight 3407 ( http://www.3407memorial.com/index.php/press-releases/186-flight-3407-families-encouraged-by-pilot-certification-proposal-challenge-dot-faa-omb-to-stand-up-to-regional-airlines-pressures ) RE: Colgan Air Flight 3407, most of the Regional Airline Association work is done behind closed door. It's a lobbying group. They don't like being in the public unless they have to be. Very little about how they manipulate regulations in order to make more money and actually circumvent safety is ever "published". I've added several more elements on "notability" to my article and have resubmitted it. But you know what, I've grown used to having to be 37 times better than everybody else that gets accepted just so I'm extended the same privilege. This is by far not the first time. Life's not fair and I thank you for once again proving that to me. Thank you for making an example out of me how so many wikipedia articles content sucks, so let's start making them 37 times better. Let's start with XB70Valyrie. Thank you.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)''

As you see there are no insults aimed at you in my appellate message. In fact, I am actually quite self-deprecating in it. I think what really needs to be grasped here is that the only thing you probably found abrupt, rude or arrogant about this appellate message was that...it appeared. Here's where I think the system broke down and made us take pause at how much we like each other, or don't. We need individuals already as expert in the field the submission article is in, reviewing that article. The RAA is a very sneaky society that even few pilots know about. Tobyc75 I looked at a number of your very cool articles on medieval Europe. Your articles truly interest me, being half German, but I could never speak on them. You would be an amazing exclusive medieval history reviewer. That's not to say you aren't good at other reviews too, but you would be the head-medieval-history-honcho-king. If that's a word. Hey! You could start a wiki-article on that! :) --XB70Valyrie (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi..it was me who reverted your post in Bmusician's talk page.I wanted to say two things
 * Re-Posting a message posted by you in User-A's talk page in User-B's talk page as-it-is is not appropriate.Please take care of that(I know you will)
 * Using words like Little Napoleons etc are considered offensive.
 * I'm sure you will work over this.Have a great wiki-life. Thanks  ƊṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ  𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ  Ω  04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I will work on it, but as I'm sure you can see, there was massive latent break-down here and I think anyone would have found that they were being treated unfairly. But, as I say, it appears to have been engineered unintentionally for that. I think we're all at the forgiving point. I know I am. I like the handle, "Strike Eagle". Ref: Strike Eagle. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was clear than you weren't vandalizing their pages but they were disturbing.Good to see you have realized it.BTW..the user name is inspired from the same   ƊṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ  𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ  Ω  05:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! → B  music  ian  03:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Explain to me User:Bmusician how linking the RAA directly to the Federal Aviation Administration and United States Congress, in addition to Fox News, Public Broadcasting Service, Business Week doesn't establish notability? Why am I being held to a standard infinitely higher than so many other articles on aviation? I have read the article on establishing notability AND the Golden Rule. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I too am struggling to see why your article was not accepted. I would go ahead and create the article yourself it would appear to have all the correct references and notability required. Good luck.Theroadislong (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Theroadislong. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regional Airline Association just click on the link and paste your article in edit mode into it.Cheers Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you know that as a registered user you do not have to go through the articles for creation process? See above comment from Theroadislong. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I now know, but the Article Creation Wizard that I was directed to at the Help Desk, I used to create this article and it leads me back to a review board again.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you just click on the red link of the article name in my post above you can copy your text there.Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks! Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will be hungry no more. How did you do that? As I indicated on your talk page (we can move that conversation here) I've battled the Article Creation Wizard into dead ends (the rticle review board) until I was dizzy! --XB70Valyrie (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I was on a phone at the time, and might have declined the wrong submission. It probably was a one-time err, and won't happen again. Regarding the personal attack on my talk page, read my message below. → B  music  ian  01:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving your page
Instead of deleting old messages..consider Archiving them for any future reference.Thanks  ƊṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ  𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ  Ω  05:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh. God I'm such a "newb". :( --XB70Valyrie (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * no worries..I have set the settings ...you may modify them to your wish.Im sure you will understand how to modify those settings..  ƊṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ  𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ  Ω  05:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great..your page is being archived...  దṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ  𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ  ™  06:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Facing Edit Warrior
Very close to official edit warring on Aviator article the talk page has all the details as does the history page. Offender: User:Wikipeterproject.

I'm headed off to bed, but I'd like you to freeze the page with my section he keeps taking out with the arbitrary claim of it not meeting NPOV specifications. Thanks. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, the place to discuss this is the article talk page. It is clear there that you do not have a WP:Consensus to add this material. If you want to pursue the issue, see WP:Dispute resolution. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dispute settled. Apparently for this article it is a consensus that I was indeed adding information that would be from this article's perspective POV. I've started an article entitiled Problems facing airline pilots. Thanks for your really fast help. The resolution was right and I think the all the info that goes into the new article wont clutter up the current Aviator article.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Problems facing airline pilots. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed a maintenance template? I do remember removing a template, but I thought it was a carrier over from my massive copy/paste from the article I was carrying my edit over from. Sorry. I'm not brand new, but I'm not a veteran wikipedian yet. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever, but Problems facing airline pilots is likely to  be a candidate for some deletion  process anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not if the corporatists that oppose its existence actually help edit it. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But they wont. It's much easier to just have an article that isn't 100% congruent with their perspective deleted than it is to actually edit it. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Problems facing airline pilots for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Problems facing airline pilots is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Problems facing airline pilots until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a society of "Editors". I have come to the firm conclusion that indeed Wikipedia is for the most part a society of arbitrary and intentionally nebulous "Critics". I've recommended my own article for deletion, not because I don't think the topic is a worthy enough issue to be covered by Wikipedia, but because the experience has left me with such a bad taste in my mouth that I'd much rather spit it out than continue chewing.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Your post about this here is a violation of WP:CANVAS. You should probably read that guideline. I'm going to remove the request that your made. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I see. Didn't know that existed. And thanks for deleting it. So, how do I find people educated in the subject to comment? I mean, this is like allowing everyone who was ever annoyed with a flight delay to finally take revenge.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary
You might want to be more polite in your edit summaries .... Edit summaries like this "Adding a scum-bag CEO's point of view" will gain you no support whatsoever.Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LoL! Yeah, but that's not going to appear in the article. :D Point taken though.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is my talk page and this is going to be the last thing I'm going to say about this. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Content moved from user page to draft sub-page
Hi. I have moved to a user sub-page at User:XB70Valyrie/draft the draft article from the top of your user page. That sort of content is not appropriate for a main user page - they are intended for users to say something about themselves and their Wikipedia work, in order to assist communication within the project - exactly as the remaining content of your user page does. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please direct me to the section in the User pages where this is not allowed. You used the acronym "RM Content". I opened the "Find" applet in my Firefox browser and searched for that term. It told me it did not exist in User pages. Further, a continued search of the simple letter combination "RM" yielded only that combination of letters used in words, like "term" and other iterations of the English language. I intend to have the html I put on my user page, which you extracted, there for two purposes. First, complete and full disclosure of "who I am" and how I am or will or could or might contribute to this society. I think my editing perspective is perfectly defined in the html you removed. Second, the existence of what used to be a excellent article about the destruction of the occupation of airline pilot in the USA was also added to my Home Page to show the ability obtained over the last few years here on Wikipedia, in building a fully developed article including citations, images, files, graphs, section, sub-sections and additional reading...regardless of whether or not others judge it as OR or NPOV. What's more, I am fully aware that this is not a public website, nor has Wikipedia ever made any representations to me that I have any freedom of speech herein. That being said, this does not exclude me from feeling as if I'm being forced into a society where my expression is limited, censored, and oh yes, edited ON MY OWN USER PAGE! Whatever freedoms Wikipedia has either given to me or denied me the right of, no one, not even the most totalitarian government will ever take away an individuals right to find wrong in such policies. As you can see from my above statement at 6'3" I am still to short to express to you how far I've "had it up to" with contributing to this "project".--XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * RE: The "Problems Facing Airline Pilots" Article
 * I am repeatedly shown how the policies and procedures of this "project" are always a detriment to me even though I live within them. I had warned the user that had reverted my edits in the Aviator article first that if he revert my edit one more time he would be in violation of the 3 revert rule. Check their talk page. Yet, they did it again. Breaking the rule. I wasn't about to break this rule, so I started my own article so titled. Obviously I was stalked by the user because my article was immediately recommended for deletion. A review of that deletion hearing will show that some users were recommending that my article be merged right back into the Aviator article it was inspired by. Wow!
 * RE: Regional Airline Association article.
 * Please see my Talk Page on this too. I went through the prescribed article creation process per Wikipedia guidelines only to have my perfectly well sited article grounded in Notability and The Golden Rule twice declined by Wikipedian reviewers unwilling or unable to look at the References, either through technological limitations or other reasons still left unexplained. Do you see how I can be reaching the limitations of my wit here with Wikipedia?--XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well; as this is intended as a display of your "editing perspective", I have restored the material to your user page. I thought it was a draft article. You may find it nominated at WP:Miscellany for deletion as WP:FAKEARTICLE or WP:POLEMIC, but that would start a debate where you could respond. I do not wish to go into all the details of your problems, but I recognise a familiar pattern where someone comes to Wikipedia with a strong agenda to promote a cause or right a grievance, and comes up against Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:Neutral point of view. You must understand that these are core policies and you will have to find a way to operate within them. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello
I see you've worked hard on Problems facing airline pilots (and it is likely to be deleted soon). How about you work on a draft article titled User:XB70Valyrie/Piloting in the United States? It could include comprehensive content. We already have a Pilot certification in the United States article, so the new comprehensive article should summarize that one. What do you think? Jesanj (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've already put it on your user page but I started the draft for you. It has an encyclopedic title. Now it just needs more encyclopedic content. If you don't want it, you can get it deleted it by placing one of these (Speedy_deletions) templates on the top of it. Let me know if you have any questions. Jesanj (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Insofar as spending a lot of time building this into a giant article on being a pilot, that responsibility I can't take on. I often wonder where many Wikipedians find all their time. I have however, copy/pasted the whole article from the Problems facing airline pilots article into User:XB70Valyrie/Piloting in the United States. I've invited a Wikipedian that appears to be a fellow airline pilot to help my NPOV it and help eliminate the apparent OR nature of the article. An element of curiosity. I noticed when you pasted the article into the new User:XB70Valyrie/Piloting in the United States page, you left off the part about "Glorified Bus Drivers". Was that because you considered that section too POV? I mean, if you did, I'd like to know. Since I'm trying to rewrite the most POV sections. If that's one, I'll start with it. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. It doesn't have to be giant. And you could take years to write it. Or post it incomplete. There's no particular rush here. I just don't see the encyclopedic value of an entire section devoted to that phrase in an article about pilots in the U.S. I assume this is the new subject of the article you would like to create. FYI saw the word "trickle" and it stuck out to me. That's not a factual, neutral sounding word, unless one is talking about a moving liquid. Jesanj (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there needs to be a place in the article where people can learn the truth about how others try to belittle with "glorified XXXXXXX". It's a virtually epidemic. Not only in the traveling public, but also inside the community of airline pilots as well. It's almost as if pilots use the term amongst each other like Black people use the "N" word amongst each other. It's NEVER in a good light and always intended to be disrespectful or self-depricating.


 * BTW: I think I'm going to copy/paste this conversation to the draft talk page. Is that okay with you? BTW II:" Thanks for your encouragement.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, and you're welcome. Something to keep in mind about Wikipedia is this: it is impossible to correctly share knowledge with others unless that knowledge has been published in reliable sources. I would offer you more npov suggestions on the draft but I am busy at this time. Until next time, happy editing. Jesanj (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * With all due respect, and with genuine desire that you can productively participate in WP, my observation is that you may not fully grasp the notion of a Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. Your article is completely one sided - which is the exact opposite of what we're seeking.  You seem to be very opinionated and passionate about this topic (as is further evidenced by your claim that WP is "gamed").


 * Purely from encyclopedic perspective, please explain to me why you think that pilots are more deserving of an article highlighting the hardships of the job than a police officer, fire figher, dentist (who have an extremely high rate of stress-induced suicide) or any other profession. You'll note that there are no articles which espouse the risks and plight of these higher-risk, lower-paying professions.


 * From a practical perspective, you seem to be of the opinion that being a pilot somehow warrants much higher levels of compensation than they currently receive. Why?  What makes pilots so special?  Because they train so much?  Well, so do fire fighters.  Because it takes skill?  So does being a computer programmer.  If I may offer a historical observation (having been around when pilots routinely made significantly more money), there were far fewer flight schools, far fewer pilots available and airlines were heavily regulated.  All of these factors led to an artificially high compensation level for a rarer resource.  Due to deregulation and the laws of supply and demand, market pressures are going to force compensation and job security in a downward direction.


 * WP is not a blog. It's not for opinion - it's an encyclopedia - of notable people and events.  Accusing the encyclopedia reflects more poorly on you that it does on the site.  I hope you accept this chat in the spirit in which it's intended - to be constructive.  Best wishes to you.  Vertium (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I do accept this chat in a constructive manner, in the interest of enlightening those who are curious enough to ask. Let me take your comment, one bite at a time. I hope in the end you'll have a better understanding. I've copied your verbatim down here and highlighted it in italics. You'll find my answers in regular font.

''Purely from encyclopedic perspective, please explain to me why you think that pilots are more deserving of an article highlighting the hardships of the job than a police officer, fire figher, dentist (who have an extremely high rate of stress-induced suicide) or any other profession. You'll note that there are no articles which espouse the risks and plight of these higher-risk, lower-paying professions.''


 * First of all, as Capt' Sullenberger said before the Senate Subhouse Committee on Aviation prior to his dissertation on the devastated quality of life of airline pilots, we are aware that 90-99% of the USA right now is being thrust into hardship. We are no different in the suffering coming from the destruction of the middle-class in the USA at the hands of plutocratic greed. I added the part about plutocratic greed. He couldn't do that before Senate since, well, plutocrats are paying for their re-election campaigns. Anyway, I want to continue by saying, I think that any occupation that has an article on it here on WP, like the ones you mention, needs a section, or a separate article outlining the challenges of said occupation. I don't believe that any occupation is any less deserving of having their hardships defined in a Wikipedia article than pilots. It's just that I am a pilot, I know about these problems, I'm a Wikipedian and therefore, I wright about those problems. I'll be happy to help any cop or fire-fighter write their hardship articles. Especially if, as you say, they are "high-risk, low-pay". Dentist, however, I don't think qualifies as either since I'm pretty sure they don't have a "training fatality rate" and their starting pay is over $100K annually. Their starting pay is well in excess of an average pilot's pay today. I don't know why they are attracted to suicide. Perhaps I need a better knowledge on that occupation. My opinion might change.


 * From a practical perspective, you seem to be of the opinion that being a pilot somehow warrants much higher levels of compensation than they currently receive. Why?  What makes pilots so special?  Because they train so much?  Well, so do fire fighters.  Because it takes skill?  So does being a computer programmer.


 * I'll take this group as a well asked questions with rhetorical perspective follow ups. Well stated question. I believe pilot pay shouldn't be at historic lows for the following reasons


 * First off I need to inform you that more than half the airline pilots flying in the USA today did not have their flight training paid for them by the military. That number will continue to dramatically increase as military pilots see that a continuation of their career as an airline pilot is suicidal due to industry instability. Scratch that. "Industry calamity". In my recent starting class at an airline there was only one ex-military pilot in a class of 8. Today, most new airline pilots have paid for training themselves, unlike the occupations cited (Cop or Fire-fighter). In order to be an airline pilot you need the mental aptitude to complete a bachelor's degree. You must have made the time sacrifice (4 years) and if you don't have a rich uncle to pay for your education you accrue a good degree of debt. Can we agree upon $20K-$40K? That's if you don't go to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, the preferred aviation college.  That will cost you $60-70K.  Add too that, an additional 2 years of post-grad work at an airline flight academy or flight school. There you will add an additional $60K - $100K to your student loan debt. By the time you're done, you've spent 6 years in school and accrued a debt between $90K to $170K. You have huge amounts of debt to repay which a police officer or a fire-fighter simply will not have accrued. Over the course of 20 years of amortization, a pilot will easily have to pay back over 1/4 million dollars in student loans. A huge sacrifice.


 * Most people will agree that the biggest mission in life is to have a family. No? On that note, cops and pilots share the distinction of having high divorce rates. I can speak for pilots on this. We must be away from home for up to 2 weeks at a time. I would say the average is about 5 days at a time, for their entire professional lives. Unlike the military where you might be deployed a few times. Yes, you could be away for a year. That however, will eventually end as your tour duty comes to a close. If you are permanently deployed over seas, accommodations are made for you to bring your family. We are not allowed to tote our wives along with us. We USED TO be able to do that. There was a time when we would find our wives amongst the flight attendant community and we'd have help from a good company in scheduling our trips together. But now, unless you're a gay pilot, or a fat older pilot, you're option to marry a flight attendant are gone. Most pilots will likely go through their lives with the simple inability to keep a marriage and happy home-life or even a functional relationship intact. Another huge sacrifice.


 * Chesley also brought up another concern. The occupation of Airline pilot is beginning to witness a brain drain. There are very few people who are intelligent enough to safely fly an airliner with regularity who are also dumb enough to make the kind of investments required and finally receive so little reward in return. In order to attract aptitude and skill, you need to pay for it. Aptitude and skill can not be legislated, as the Airlines for America and Regional Airline Association]], corporate lobbying groups, would wish to have it. The crash of Colgan 3407, Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 and Comair Flight 191 are simple precursors for what to expect if things continue like this. Although arguments have been made throughout aviation history, no, it cannot be proven that a higher paid pilot is a safer pilot. There has never been a study done since the controls required in order to test the theory are impossible to quantify. As you can see from my User Page, airline pilots are not now, nor have they ever been "glorified bus-drivers". Anyone who knows technology knows that along with the things it makes easier, it also makes 10 more things more complicated. Safety systems can only be operated as such if the operator is intelligent enough to do so. The aptitude required to do this job safely, over and over again, is uncommon enough to deserve commensurate rewards.


 * If I may offer a historical observation (having been around when pilots routinely made significantly more money), there were far fewer flight schools, far fewer pilots available and airlines were heavily regulated. All of these factors led to an artificially high compensation level for a rarer resource.  Due to deregulation and the laws of supply and demand, market pressures are going to force compensation and job security in a downward direction.


 * Excellent observations, in part. You're a smart person. If you weren't I would have just dismissed your comments as the incoherent bumbling of ignorance and ignored them. That being said, you're right, in part. Pilot pay had been artificially inflated, in part, by subsidies the airlines received for carrying mail. More importantly, during the age of regulation airlines were actually able to turn something called "profits". They weren't brandishing 3 foot straight-razors, succeeding in cutting each others throats from ear to ear, and along with it the throats of every employee working for those companies. Many people in the pre-deregulation era saw pretty wealthy airline pilots, and here's why. It wasn't that the occupation of airline pilot itself paid really, really well.  I mean, it paid a rewards commensurate to the sacrifices, as I expressed earlier, but here's where the catch came in. Almost all pre-dereg airline pilots were former military. They carried no debt to repay, they had already lead profitable lives as officers and most importantly they started collecting a military officer pensions at age 55. When these pilots retired, they were now collecting not one, but two pensions. Needless to say, those seeing this most certainly thought they were wealthy because they were "airline pilots" alone. No, it was mostly because they entered debt free and had double benefits from previous military experience. I agree, that pre-deregulation pay was indeed artificially held higher than it would normally be. That being said, what's "normal"? Today people are under the impression that this "insanity" (my word) at the airlines is normal. But it's not. As you aptly pointed out, in part, supply and demand didn't control airline pilot pay pre-deregulation. But allow me to explain that supply and demand doesn't control airline pilot pay now either!


 * Since airline deregulation in 1978, demand for domestic air travel in the USA has doubled. Also in that same time international air travel, on US carriers, has tripled. According to the FAA's 2011 pilot certification report which goes back to 1980, it shows that licensed, active commercial and airline pilot numbers have dropped by 20%. Can you explain to me how the laws of supply and demand would show a meteoric rise in demand and a marked decline in supply yet gross airline pilot benefits have dropped over 50%? Here's how. A declining middle-class and the use of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy as an "Ultimate Weapon" (as defined in Robert Kaps college level textbook Air Transport Labor Relations (1997)) to union-bust their way to profitability has taken hold at every major airline. Every major airline has filed for bankruptcy at least once, not since the beginning of dereg, but since the beginning of the new millennium. Industry analysts call it the Race to the Bottom. Now, airline pilot pay is being held artificially low by the forces of corporate greed and the general public's inability to afford an airline ticket at $600 instead of at $500. What really needs to happen to fix this is either government subsidies (since travelers will just stay home instead of pay for an unaffordable ticket price) to airline pilots, or a Roosevelt-tian New Deal for American people at large. Unless of course we'd like to run this experiment of, "How dumb can airline pilots get before major airlines begin experiencing the same crashes I'd pointed out before on the regional level?" Because that's where these guys flying for the regionals now are headed; the majors. I know. I was one of them. But, as you can tell, I'm not dumb. ;-) I'm regretting my decision but am too old now to change occupations....yet again. The worst of this happened in the new millennium. I'm stuck here now. That's why I fight. All routes of "flight" are gone. Pardon the pun. ;-)


 * WP is not a blog. It's not for opinion - it's an encyclopedia - of notable people and events.  Accusing the encyclopedia reflects more poorly on you that it does on the site.  I hope you accept this chat in the spirit in which it's intended - to be constructive.  Best wishes to you.


 * I agree. I'm hoping to get some help turning my opinion piece into a piece which still illustrates all that I've included, only in a Wiki-friendly editing format. I've accepted that it's POV. I need more POV's to help me make it neutral. And yet, I maintain that WP is "gamed". The 3 revert rule always favors the person that came in and made the first revert. The first "revert", is really just a deletion edit by the one starting the war. I asked the Edit War folks to freeze a page since an edit war was about to occur. It didn't happen. So I had a choice; revert again to keep my edit in the article, breaking the 3-undo rule, and suffer the consequences or, allow my copy to be stand deleted until the issue was resolved. That's just wrong. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I found this about dentists. And whereas it's not the Wall Street Journal, it's an interesting explanation as to why dentists have a higher suicide rate. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2301/do-dentists-have-the-highest-suicide-rate --XB70Valyrie (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Great points. As I mentioned on the AfD, you are clearly passionate about this topic and you defend your position well. I would think you'd have a great article for the IOPA magazine or other related publication. One observation I'd make is that your comments seem to reflect a particular dilemma that you (and many others are facing) - in that the industry changed after you'd become involved and you're of the age where it doesn't necessarily make sense to try and change careers today.

I completely agree that air safety is of critical import in the world today - whether it be from exhaustion or outside threats from unruly or terroristic passengers. Anyone joining the profession today does so understanding what the circumstances are and might be less inclined to do so. When pilots are not available, there would likely have to be a reaction from airlines that would increase pay and improve working conditions. That doesn't help us today, but that's the supply and demand I was talking about. A similar example is the role of nursing in the USA today. Nurses are in such high demand that there are bonuses, living expenses and much higher salaries being paid. Of course, tens of thousands are going to nursing school because they see the income opportunity - and in 6 years, there will be more than we need and the compensation will collapse.

One clarification I wanted to make was about your 3 revert rule. It's true that you're only supposed to have 3 reverts - but that's in a 24-hour period. I'd suggest that when you revert an edit to your article, you message that editor and invite them to a conversation rather than get into an edit war. If they won't engage you on that level, escalate it to an admin. It's not intended to favor one editor over another.

I appreciate you taking the time to write me back. Thanks. Vertium  (talk to me)  16:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent editing history at Koch family shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice try. You've been summoned to the talk page of said article. YOU are the one reverting my edits and I'm not Newbie to this either. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You may not be a newbie, but you've been unable to sign your posts at Talk:Koch family or at my talk page. Minimal tags required if your material is to be included are POV disputed verification failed    — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read and follow WP:NPA
Your posts about other editors must abide by WP:NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to Arthur Rubin, I don't have to make any attacks other than pointing out the facts. What's more I will not be Gamed. RE: "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia." Being subject to a system of gaming is a personal attack on me. I will respond in kind.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

;-)

 * Thank you to for your passion on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family and Talk:Koch family (including Dispute resolution noticeboard). 99.119.131.192 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's still happening in a Dispute Resolution I've started.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Just some general advice
Hey just wanted to let you know that, in general, working on politically controversial content can be very taxing, time consuming, and risks being unrewarding and stress inducing. I'd recommend a side project related to your interests to keep you going, such as attempting to work on something like North American XB-70 Valkyrie with the intent of bringing it up to WP:GA status. I see the XB70 is already a GA. It could be a model. If you take this approach you'll probably develop more editing skills to improve your experiences around here, including those on politically controversial subjects. Happy editing. Jesanj (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably a good idea. I'll do that as well. Yeah, success the political arena doesn't come without having a granite resolve to create righteousness, and along with it, a will to negotiate. Whereas I might not know everything about wikipedia there is to know, that still doesn't mean I've been robbed of the common sense to know when certain articles are bias and being gamed by partisan groups here on WP. I'll try breaking my intensity down with some fun articles too. Thanks for the friendly advise.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Jesanj (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

:-)
Thank you for your recent comments. You may find User_talk:Alan_Liefting/Archive_16 interesting, found on wp:Tea. 108.195.139.228 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Have you searched his name in the Admin noticeboards archive as well? []

I saw activity going back to 2008. The editor in question appears in 332 complaints as either the filer of those complaints or the subject of them. There are accusations of "tag-team reverting". He's been blocked a number of times and has had the accusation of harassment leveled at him repeatedly. Interestingly, I cut my teeth on commenting on videos with people like this on Youtube on various topics. I'm used to it. It's not like it isn't in my genetics to begin with, but it was reinforced to never let people like this allow you to give up on delivering righteousness. Can you imagine a pilot where, as soon as trouble raised its ugly head, he'd get up, leave the cockpit, sit down in first class, and while the aircraft careened towards the ground exclaimed, "Oh I give up!" LoL!

Well, I saw right away that the user fit the typical tea-party member profile. We're doing better now. We'll see how everything finally turns out, but I think we've both comprehended that neither one of us are push-overs. It's just that he seems to find himself in a lot of trouble assuming such role. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look at the link you posted.  This may be of interest (view 500).  Look for the "Be aware" Edit Summaries, for deletion on Talk pages.  Here is an example: .   Looking back over Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin through the years Mr. Rubin seems to be a real fountain of hate, and given that he is an Admin one might call it "judicial activism".  99.181.155.9 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This clearly shows the subject has been deleting other users posts on talk pages with whom he has differences in opinion. A quick FireFox word search brings that all to light in an instant. That's unscrupulous. So, has anything been done? I mean, it seems as if this subject simply terrorizes WP with immunity. Although I might from time to time bumble my way into an honest mistake, I'm glad Wikipedia is as meticulous at record keeping as a Nazi death camp. The trail of this subjects abuse is all over.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This Portal talk:Current events/2012 May 6 is potentially interesting. | He deletes a NYT reference, then states there isn't a source for wording, then Edit Wars over a synonym.  Petty dictator behavior.  99.181.131.205 (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well. I see the word "mysterious" used in the correction from the June 6th article. "...A picture caption on Tuesday with an article about mysterious dolphin and seabird deaths..." But I don't see the June 6th article. Is there a link to it. I'm curious.


 * I've had admins on another pilot career related site sanctioned before. I just had to contact the software owners at Internet Brands. Ultimately, people who actually run these sites are more contactable than you might think. Admins tend to think people don't know how to contact management, or are just too lazy.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You've seen this, right? Contact us/other Look at the way bottom.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I wrote an email to this address and copied this html conversation into it recommending for both his dismissal as an admin and permanently blocking his most used IP. I suggest you do the same.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This may be of interest ... check-out MO on User talk:99.181.157.99, User talk:99.119.130.2, 99.119.131.17, and User talk:99.54.138.81. 99.181.128.177 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User talk:99.119.131.17. 99.181.142.87 (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also recommend calling the Wikimedia Foundation. I can't disclose my contact's name here, because then the user will just rush off and want to lobby that person at Wikipedia, but, I have a strange feeling, if you press hard enough, our paths will cross on the same person's desk.


 * Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
 * 149 New Montgomery Street, 3rd Floor
 * San Francisco, CA 94105
 * USA
 * Phone: +1-415-839-6885
 * Fax: +1-415-882-0495


 * By the way. If you do a Google "Wikipedia deletionist (User name) strikes again", you'll find out what makes them tick. AND! You'll see that the person whose article I was working on and this user, probably know of each other. All the pieces fit.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If the user concerned reads this and thinks they can stop me by suspending my account, I've already backed this section's html up in a word document. As a pilot, I'll bet you couldn't guess that system redundancy is one of my specialties.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're interested, all those IPs are the same person, and have many more edits than you or I. Also, I wouldn't think that I could stop you from posting your ... statements ... outside of Wikipedia by blocking your account, even if you have no idea what Wikipedia is for.  I would add, though, that you should only repost your contributions to the page, or you would risk having a copyright violation if you reposted without appropriate credits.
 * There is a reason that you have been unable to post your article (now on your user page) on Wikipedia, and I have had nothing to do with it. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Who's attacking who? You know what. It really doesn't mater. I'm in contact with Wikimedia management. This has grown beyond the web-pages of Wikipedia.org.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool down Valyrie......let the issue be solved peacefully...  ϮheჂtriԞe  Σagle  Sorties  05:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done my homework. I know what motivates the user in question. They are transparent to me.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi XB70Valyrie, I am not sure if you created the video on Youtube but I share a very similar experience with you and I have been heavily attacked not only by Arthur Rubin but also in response to reporting him to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#List_of_potential_candidates_for_the_Nobel_Prize_in_Literature And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive_Admin_Arthur_Rubin_-_Please_help --Anthrophilos (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

help needed tracking down a document
Please see Talk:User:Wikipeterproject for my request to find a document you mentioned on that page. Guyovski (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

User page change
Hello, I have made this change to your user page. I hope that it solved your problem, otherwise feel free to revert. Ryan Vesey Review me!  21:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)