Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot 21:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but do you have some connection with or professional interest in the events surrounding Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907? I noticed that you have focused solely on this subject in all your time here. I am trying my best to see your point, but please understand that some editors react badly to single-purpose accounts; see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account for more information. I am assuming good faith and am interested in resolving your concerns. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 19:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have technical knowledge about subjects been discussed with this accident. I have connections with its investigation. I am writing a scientific paper about it, and I am writing about WP unreliability due to this kind of manipulation with the participation of WP administrators. This article is been manipulated by Crum375 and his sockpuppets. Now I have a lot of material. This is why I have sole interest with just this article. I have professional knowledge to know it is been manipulated. And I'm not editing the articles (Crum375 don't let me do it). This is the only subject I have interest to comment in WP. I do not have many insterests in WP, I think it is not a reliable source of informations due to this kind of manipulation. There is nothing wrong with this issue ("professional interest"). We have insterest about subjects we work with.
Sdruvss (
talk) 11:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- This kind of query you are doing and ChekUser is one of his well known strategies. I suspect that you are one of his socketpuppets, but maybe I'm wrong.
Sdruvss (
talk) 11:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering my query, I will disregard the bizarre accusation for now; it doesn't help your credibility. I realize that many of us edit articles we are interested in, and there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. However, Wikipedia operates on a collaborative and consensus basis. If you find that there is no support for your position (and by now, other editors have weighed in other than Crum375), you must accept consensus. There are avenues available to you to elevate the discussion; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You cannot, however, use alternate accounts to create the appearance of support for your position, which I suspect you have done. If you are willing to disclose all your sockpuppets, I will block them and we can carry on. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 16:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)You are accusing another user of being a puppeteer, and implicitly accusing other accounts of being socks. There had better be some evidence behind any such accusation. Otherwise, a prompt apology and retraction is in order. LeadSongDog come howl 16:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- This kind of query you are doing and ChekUser is one of his well known strategies. I suspect that you are one of his socketpuppets, but maybe I'm wrong.
Sdruvss (
talk) 11:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You are suspected of
sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the
notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdruvss. Thank you.
Spike Wilbury (
talk) 03:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is not true. Have you investigated Crum375 puppetry?
Sdruvss (
talk) 11:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don't respond here, do so at the page linked above. LeadSongDog come howl 16:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is not true. Have you investigated Crum375 puppetry?
Sdruvss (
talk) 11:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I just indefinitely blocked three of your sockpuppets. If you use alternative accounts abusively again, you will be blocked from editing. NW ( Talk) 23:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Re your comment, I think you are seriously mistaken. Crum would not abuse admin tools to block a user in a dispute that he is involved in. That would be contrary to WP policies. In this matter, he is just another editor. Your manner of argumentation has been a problem both for you and for the article. Please do not simply quote another editor, but provide WP:DIFFs (as above) so that those reading the quote can do so in the context intended. More broadly, WP:TPG gives guidelines for use of talk pages that you should make yourself generally familiar with to reduce friction. LeadSongDog come howl 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think he would, and he did. Search for Crum375 at internet. These issues are just ordinary facts that he doesn't let be written in the article:
- Brasilia to Manaus has a aircraft heading of 006º. Every newbee pilot knows what this means;
- Transponder was turned to standby (no matters how). This makes secondary radar lose contact with aircraft;
- Whithout secondary radar, ATC lost control of the aircraft;
- Controllers were confounded by the "unusual" flight plan, with altitude changes in the middle of the route;
- Crew was distracted all the flight long using a notebook.
- Why these issues, that can be verified in final report, can't be included in the article? Why these small things are huge debates?
-
Sdruvss (
talk) 18:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is not up to me or anyone else to seek out substantiation for your statements. It is purely your responsibility to do so. "Search for Crum375 at internet" doesn't get you off the hook. Provide links or retract.
LeadSongDog
come howl 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- What you want me to do? How do I retract? Where do I retract?
Sdruvss (
talk) 19:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- To retract you first
strike outany unsupportable statement, then append a brief explanation. Alternately, to provide a link backing up your statement, you find his edit that you wish to refer to, copy the address at which you found it, and paste that into the wikitext at the appropriate place as discussed at WP:DIFF and demonstrated in the first line below this section's head. LeadSongDog come howl 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)- I don't know how to do all these stuff, I'm not a expert in WP. I barely know how to write in Talk Pages, what I never will do again in my life. Sdruvss ( talk) 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, this is to me a case study of WP manipulation. Soon I will be out of here.
Sdruvss (
talk) 21:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't difficult if you try, but being rude to people is no way to gain help. LeadSongDog come howl 22:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- To retract you first
- What you want me to do? How do I retract? Where do I retract?
Sdruvss (
talk) 19:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is not up to me or anyone else to seek out substantiation for your statements. It is purely your responsibility to do so. "Search for Crum375 at internet" doesn't get you off the hook. Provide links or retract.
LeadSongDog
come howl 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Telling people to "search for Crum375 on the internet" is inappropriate. Please retract that statement. NW ( Talk) 19:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do have a "professional" interest in this article, as well as all other Wikipedia articles I work on. I want them all to look as "professional" as possible, as part of a high quality encyclopedia, strictly conforming to all our policies and guidelines. This includes being well written, well researched and appropriately cited, and neutrally presented. This specific article has been promoted to featured article status because it meets these requirements. I am an unpaid volunteer, like most editors here. Crum375 ( talk) 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sdruvss, I know you are still new to Wikipedia, but you should be aware that, per WP:BLP, you may not add derogatory or critical material about living persons unless it is accompanied by inline citation to high quality secondary sources directly supporting that material. This applies to any negative material about living persons added anywhere on the Wikipedia website, including article space, project space and talk pages. If such material is added, and is not properly sourced, it must be removed immediately. Thank you for your understanding. Crum375 ( talk) 13:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot 21:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but do you have some connection with or professional interest in the events surrounding Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907? I noticed that you have focused solely on this subject in all your time here. I am trying my best to see your point, but please understand that some editors react badly to single-purpose accounts; see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account for more information. I am assuming good faith and am interested in resolving your concerns. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 19:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have technical knowledge about subjects been discussed with this accident. I have connections with its investigation. I am writing a scientific paper about it, and I am writing about WP unreliability due to this kind of manipulation with the participation of WP administrators. This article is been manipulated by Crum375 and his sockpuppets. Now I have a lot of material. This is why I have sole interest with just this article. I have professional knowledge to know it is been manipulated. And I'm not editing the articles (Crum375 don't let me do it). This is the only subject I have interest to comment in WP. I do not have many insterests in WP, I think it is not a reliable source of informations due to this kind of manipulation. There is nothing wrong with this issue ("professional interest"). We have insterest about subjects we work with.
Sdruvss (
talk) 11:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- This kind of query you are doing and ChekUser is one of his well known strategies. I suspect that you are one of his socketpuppets, but maybe I'm wrong.
Sdruvss (
talk) 11:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering my query, I will disregard the bizarre accusation for now; it doesn't help your credibility. I realize that many of us edit articles we are interested in, and there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. However, Wikipedia operates on a collaborative and consensus basis. If you find that there is no support for your position (and by now, other editors have weighed in other than Crum375), you must accept consensus. There are avenues available to you to elevate the discussion; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You cannot, however, use alternate accounts to create the appearance of support for your position, which I suspect you have done. If you are willing to disclose all your sockpuppets, I will block them and we can carry on. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 16:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)You are accusing another user of being a puppeteer, and implicitly accusing other accounts of being socks. There had better be some evidence behind any such accusation. Otherwise, a prompt apology and retraction is in order. LeadSongDog come howl 16:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- This kind of query you are doing and ChekUser is one of his well known strategies. I suspect that you are one of his socketpuppets, but maybe I'm wrong.
Sdruvss (
talk) 11:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You are suspected of
sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the
notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdruvss. Thank you.
Spike Wilbury (
talk) 03:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is not true. Have you investigated Crum375 puppetry?
Sdruvss (
talk) 11:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don't respond here, do so at the page linked above. LeadSongDog come howl 16:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is not true. Have you investigated Crum375 puppetry?
Sdruvss (
talk) 11:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I just indefinitely blocked three of your sockpuppets. If you use alternative accounts abusively again, you will be blocked from editing. NW ( Talk) 23:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Re your comment, I think you are seriously mistaken. Crum would not abuse admin tools to block a user in a dispute that he is involved in. That would be contrary to WP policies. In this matter, he is just another editor. Your manner of argumentation has been a problem both for you and for the article. Please do not simply quote another editor, but provide WP:DIFFs (as above) so that those reading the quote can do so in the context intended. More broadly, WP:TPG gives guidelines for use of talk pages that you should make yourself generally familiar with to reduce friction. LeadSongDog come howl 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think he would, and he did. Search for Crum375 at internet. These issues are just ordinary facts that he doesn't let be written in the article:
- Brasilia to Manaus has a aircraft heading of 006º. Every newbee pilot knows what this means;
- Transponder was turned to standby (no matters how). This makes secondary radar lose contact with aircraft;
- Whithout secondary radar, ATC lost control of the aircraft;
- Controllers were confounded by the "unusual" flight plan, with altitude changes in the middle of the route;
- Crew was distracted all the flight long using a notebook.
- Why these issues, that can be verified in final report, can't be included in the article? Why these small things are huge debates?
-
Sdruvss (
talk) 18:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is not up to me or anyone else to seek out substantiation for your statements. It is purely your responsibility to do so. "Search for Crum375 at internet" doesn't get you off the hook. Provide links or retract.
LeadSongDog
come howl 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- What you want me to do? How do I retract? Where do I retract?
Sdruvss (
talk) 19:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- To retract you first
strike outany unsupportable statement, then append a brief explanation. Alternately, to provide a link backing up your statement, you find his edit that you wish to refer to, copy the address at which you found it, and paste that into the wikitext at the appropriate place as discussed at WP:DIFF and demonstrated in the first line below this section's head. LeadSongDog come howl 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)- I don't know how to do all these stuff, I'm not a expert in WP. I barely know how to write in Talk Pages, what I never will do again in my life. Sdruvss ( talk) 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, this is to me a case study of WP manipulation. Soon I will be out of here.
Sdruvss (
talk) 21:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't difficult if you try, but being rude to people is no way to gain help. LeadSongDog come howl 22:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- To retract you first
- What you want me to do? How do I retract? Where do I retract?
Sdruvss (
talk) 19:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is not up to me or anyone else to seek out substantiation for your statements. It is purely your responsibility to do so. "Search for Crum375 at internet" doesn't get you off the hook. Provide links or retract.
LeadSongDog
come howl 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Telling people to "search for Crum375 on the internet" is inappropriate. Please retract that statement. NW ( Talk) 19:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do have a "professional" interest in this article, as well as all other Wikipedia articles I work on. I want them all to look as "professional" as possible, as part of a high quality encyclopedia, strictly conforming to all our policies and guidelines. This includes being well written, well researched and appropriately cited, and neutrally presented. This specific article has been promoted to featured article status because it meets these requirements. I am an unpaid volunteer, like most editors here. Crum375 ( talk) 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sdruvss, I know you are still new to Wikipedia, but you should be aware that, per WP:BLP, you may not add derogatory or critical material about living persons unless it is accompanied by inline citation to high quality secondary sources directly supporting that material. This applies to any negative material about living persons added anywhere on the Wikipedia website, including article space, project space and talk pages. If such material is added, and is not properly sourced, it must be removed immediately. Thank you for your understanding. Crum375 ( talk) 13:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)