Engine850

Welcome!

Hello, Engine850, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Voyager

Hi. The material you add has to be verifiable. You have not provided references for what you are claiming. And the new edit today to claim that the paint job was just the culmination of the £10m refit is original research without a reference. Please provide references for everything you add. Removing verifiable material, though well intentioned, is disruptive. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiabiity. Mark83 (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Mark, I have provided a multitude of MOD, RAF, GOV and Aviation sources, all far more accurate reliable than blogs and newspapers that you keep linking. Wikipedia:Verifiabiity. Engine850 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Conduct

You cannot remove verifiable material and say that your knowledge proves the contrary. That is the definition of original research! Please desist and take the time to review Wikipedia policies. As is stands you are being disruptive. Mark83 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I stated, quite clearly, that your source did NOT state what you claimed, and that you would not find a verifiable source, because I was there and know that it didn't happen. Engine850 (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

We're talking about 2 different things aren't we? You're talking about the Gulf War and I'm talking about Storm Shadow? It would be helpful if you're removing large sections that you do it in stages, this will help everyone else see what has changed. Edit summaries would also be helpful in these cases.

But on the Gulf, the article now reads "No. 617 Squadron was deployed to King Faisal Air Base, Saudi Arabia following the 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait, it returned to the UK in Nov 90' replaced by 16/20 Sqn, some of its aircrews did return, operating with various other squadrons throughout KSA " which isn't covered in the references. Have I missed something? If so could you help me by directing me to the statement in the references which covers this text? Mark83 (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And why would the squadron have been given battle honours for 1991 if it wasn't there? Mark83 (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The squadron was given battle honours because some of its aircrew were in theatre during the conflict, but, as you can see, the squadron itself is not listed as being there. Let me first answer your question, all the links are there to show that 16/20 Sqn were at Tabuk, not 617. You seem happy to accept 617 Sqn were there, with no verifiable evidence, yet you demand I produce some, so I did.

I will explain, normally, when the RAF does a prolonged detachment, like OP Telic (as I explained for OP Telic) they send small numbers of airframes from multiple squadrons, as no squadron can afford to lose all its aircraft for such a long period of time. So, for example, 12 airframes may spend an entire year somewhere, occasionally rotated for major maintenance back to the UK, but squadrons will go together for 3 month stints, so over a year you may have had, 12, 31, 617, 14 doing a stint with whatever airframes happen to be there, finally with all the aircraft returning home.

The Gulf War was too large for this, a large number of 617 initially deployed to Tabuk in August, they were replaced by 16 Squadron in Nov 1990 (the usual rotation period) in its entirety (a handful remained at Laarbruch), but the RAF decided we needed more, so we took all our aircraft, plus approx 50% of 20 Sqn and some of their airframes. As OP Granby progressed, the RAF decided to increase further, so we were given some additional airframes from a variety of sources, and additional aircrew from Squadrons that were not present in theatre, we had aircrew from II, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 617 to boost the numbers, I have a scan of the letter sent to us all at the end of the detachment by Group Captain Bill Hedges, as the Tabuk wing outshone every other Squadron with its figures by quite some margin, but the RAF does not like to promote this (bad for morale). Hence 11 Squadrons got Battle Honours, despite only 4 Squadrons being in theatre, as their aircrew were attached to the Squadrons in theatre.

As for the Storm Shadow, the source was for another squadron several years later on another OP entirely, that could not be left as it was. Hence, I removed the inaccurate information, and added more accurate info and accurate source later on. Engine850 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Mark83 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI comment

Please resubmit carefully. Making sure to sign and that your text does not invade other editors' comments. Thank you. El_C 00:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Let it go

Your recent editing history at Air transport of the British royal family and government shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Firebrace (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Firebrace, could you please explain why, when I have provided a long list of verifiable evidence from the Royal Air Force, the Ministry of Defence, the House of Lords and the British Government, 2 politically motivated users can constantly delete my sources and replace them with a far left newspaper article, written by someone with zero knowledge of the subject matter ? I would argue, it is they that are being disruptive, they completely ignore the evidence, and simply delete everything. Engine850 (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in, but I am not politically motivated. I invite you to withdraw that. Mark83 (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mark83 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest concern

Hello, Engine850. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Mark83 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Air transport of the British royal family and government

Hello User:Engine850. You've been warned for edit warring at Air transport of the British royal family and government per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again before obtaining a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston. When 4 conspiracy theorists form a consensus, and delete all official statements and evidence to be replaced by left wing conspiracy theory news at which point will common sense prevail ? As surely, that makes Wikipedia all about conspiracy theories not facts. No consensus will ever be reached, regardless of how much evidence is posted, as it's simply deleted and replaced with conjecture. Engine850 (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please be careful about calling fellow editors conspiracy theorists. The cost of paint is surely not one of the major concerns for sensible people considering all the other crises in the world. If you still find the cost of the paint job to be a major issue that Wikipedia must get correct at all costs, consider opening an WP:RFC. I suspect that you might be right about the underlying issue but it is unlikely that fact can be proved from sources that are publically available. For yet another tangent that could be pursued, see marginal cost. It allows the 'true' underlying cost of something to be determined, regardless of how the accounting is set up. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)