User talk:Michael Shrimpton

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've noticed your interest in the

Me 262 article, but I'm afraid we need citations for your claims. Also, some of your statements have removed important information, such as the Germans lagging behind in high-heat metals. If you could provide some reliable sources for your claims it would be very helpful.--LWF 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Gloster Meteor

I am removing the following: (John W R Taylor, Aircraft Aircaft, Hamlyn, 1974,. 4th ed., pages 104-9, see also the standard reference works on the Gloster Meteor listed below, which give the delivery dates of the first aircraft in June 1944 to 616 Squadron). The German Propaganda Ministry claimed that the Me 262 was first, but the most recent research by the RAF Museum suggests October 1944 at as a the most realistic date for service entry (conversation with the author). The Museum publicly claims a 'combat' in July, but this turns out on inquiry to have been a chance encounter by an Me 262 prototpye on test, which does not seem to have been armed. There is no reliable record of it opening fire, although it may have entered into a mock dogfight with the unarmed Mosquito. On any view this was scarcely operational service.

The Meteor first entered service with 616 Squadron the preceding month, but several weeks were taken for work-up.

There are Nazi era records suggesting combat with the USAAF in August 1944, but Nazi era records are vulnerble to falsification for propaganda purposes and no one appears to have done a reconciliation with USAAF records.

The respected Editor of Janes All the World's Aircraft John W R Taylor, with the aid of respected researcher Charles Gibbs-Mith exhaustively analysed RAF and Luftwaffe records in the mid-1960s and published their conclusions in 1967 (Aircraft Aircraft, cited supra, the book was aimed at a general readership but is well-written and researched by the world's most published aviation author at that time). They place service entry for the Gloster Meteor Mk 1 as July 27 1944. The claim that the Me 262 was first has been endlessly recycled but is simply untrue, indeed it could even be said that the Me 262 was never truly operatoinal, as the Germans lagged behind Great Britain in advanced nickel alloy research and were never able to make a reliable turbojet engine. Moreover the Me 262 was unstable in engine out conditions, which it experienced fairly often, since the Jumo 004 was normally good for about 12 hours (and that included the delivery flight). In practice the Me 262 was a single-mission airplane, which would normally be expected to remain operational after an intensive day of combat.

Thanks for your message. This controversy rumbles on- I admit that I was expecting vandalism, so did not make the effort to include sources, which are given above. This German propaganda claim was comprehensively disproved in the mid-60s by Janes All the World's Aircrfat Editor J W R Taylor.

All of this is an argument and a POV that is best addressed on the discussion page of the Gloster Meteor. Take your arguments there. Bzuk 02:34 31 January 2007 (UTC).~

I have stuck to the facts and provided references from a very reputable source, what is your problem? The world's forst jet fighter was the Gloster Meteor, period. If you are content to allow Wikipedia to be the vehicle for unverified German propaganda claims more than 60 years after the end of World War Two, so be it. If your interest in the facts is genuine, then check my sources, before removing accurate text under a specious pretext, in breach of your rules, which ephasise objectivty.

How about phrasing it along the lines of, "Later research shows that, contrary to common belief, the Gloster Meteor was the first operational jet fighter" and then providing a citation. Rather than getting contentious about it, we could actually get something done without having to resort to things like mediation.--LWF 04:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I've been prosecuting a trial. This formulation sounds good to me, citation for Taylor I(an immensely reputable aviation author, of over 180 books) is given, I've also made some points on the Meteor discussion page.

Me 262

Please read

WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not the place for editorializing or arguing. Please stick to the facts. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Gloster Meteor and Me 262 claims

Michael- stop this constant revisions on the article pages, it is considered vandalism. I asked you to take the issue to the relevant discussion pages. That's the place to hash out controversies. Bzuk 12:34 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Reply

Michael, I have no interest in getting into a spitting contest with you. I have stated continually that when there is a contentious issue, take it to the discussion page first. I also have no abiding interest in which aircraft flew first- check the records of the article and you will see who is the orginator of the Me 262 and Gloster Meteor articles. I would refer you to some basic tenets of Wikipedia, use the following:

Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them;
Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations;
Stay cool when the editing gets hot;
Avoid edit wars and follow the three-revert rule;
Act in good faith;
Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point;
Assume good faith on the part of others, and
Be open and welcoming.

Bzuk19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken edit

I am dispassionate with regard to the issue of the world's first jet fighter, and I do not intend this to be offensive. Please don't break the article in your rush to change it back to the version you prefer. Such action evidences more of a desire to win an argument than to contribute to the content of an encyclopedia. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three revert rule

Please be advised that you are eligible for blocking as you have contravened the 3RR dictum of Wikipedia on the Messerschmitt Me 262, Gloster Meteor and de Havilland Comet articles. Remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period (not calendar day); it also does not include self reverts, and reverts to deal with simple vandalism. In addition, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced is included in the rule. Administrators will look over and discuss whether a user has truly violated the three revert rule, and take appropriate blocking action if necessary. Bzuk19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've taken a look over this situation, and have subsequently locket you from editing for a period of 24 hours, as per the

three-revert rule. This in no way is an indication of my taking sides against you, or any indication of my being for or against your edits. It is only based upon the editing history of the Messerschmitt Me 262

article. After the 24 hours is expired, you are welcome to return to editing.

I do, however, have this advice - and I am going to offer the same advice to the others involved in this conflict - try not to make significant edits to the Messerschmitt Me 262, De Havilland Comet, or Gloster Meteor articles. Stick to minor edits, and include with each edit a reference for the information you are changing or adding. One of the most important policies of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

The best possible way of resolving this is to step back from editing these articles for some time, allow everyone to cool their jets, and perhaps later come to a civil agreement with the other editors, preferably on the talk pages of the articles involved, and then allow the sourced information agreed upon to be moved to the article.

If any further improper editing is done by either side, step outlines in

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

may have to be taken.

Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, having been involved in a current Dogfight on the AVRO Arrow, site,you hve my sympathies.

There is a cottage industry in "buff books". The authors of these books feed off each others' conclusions, then quote each other in Wikipedia. The results can be hilarious.

As a barrister you are no doubt amused by those quasi legal warnings, delivered in BOLDTYPE. "STEPS to be taken",indeed...toddlers steps, p'haps?

Bill,RELAX. Consider the possibliity that you may be, on occasion, wrong.

Regards Opuscalgary 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Havilland Comet

I've added back the POV template to the De Havilland Comet article because it would seem to be obvious that there is a conflict here, with two opposing views. If you would like to add some sources to the statements in the article which you support, that would be appreciated, and would help resolve this issue. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal insults are not acceptable

I was cleaning up edits in a few articles when I noted some personal attacks you left in checkin logs [1][2][3]. These sorts of comments are not acceptable on the wikipedia, or, in my opinion, anywhere else. Please stop. Maury 04:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. 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! HagermanBot 18:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

An aside: Checking with reliable sources, many of the claims made in this page about relationships with oranization tied to US security and military are publicly denied. The page itself seems to be the product of a publicity agent and little else. I have no problem with this, but it also begs to be "vandalized" as the basic content is of extremely low credibility to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.58.34 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow CDNS,this is silly stuff

Trevor, Bill, Maury, Relax.

Look, the date of jet service entry is not that important. All  WW2 records are incomplete, esp. in Germany.(Citation, Reg's Dad- , fluent in German & English, Cdn army sargent, Occ. forces, 1945!) Artillery trumps files- big time.

Please note that over 80% of these "We will take action, Michael" edits come from my fellow Canadians. Given our tiny worldwide overall membership, this is SCARRRY.

Fellows,its spring. count the disputes you are in( I'm at one) & rack it up. Please break clean, before the rest of the world assumes we have been "winter bit by the Wendigo..!"\ Opuscalgary 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC

Ps bill old fella, how come Michael didn't get one of your infamous chain letters accusing me of being a "sock puppet?' I thought you sent that to EVERYYONE ON the Wikinet..... chaio Opuscalgary

Without drawing down 'Holy fire', Bill, please consider Michaels' argument.Precise dates for events in Nazi Germany , summer 1944-spring 1945, are OFTEN not verifiable.

Records were ALTERED to place, or remove, participants from events prosecuted.

German military staff were ordered to attend, slave labour conferences,for exzample, to render them complicit.

In order not to explain that someone was a powerless bystander at an event discussing slave labour, documentation ,is 'produced' that he was flying the Me262 on a certain date, for example.

I refer you to Robert Jacksons' Nuremburg summaries. Not only were the Nazis masters at altering fact, some records were altered to protect the truly innocent.This ,plus Michaels' explanations, means that a GERMAN late war record is a variant. My dad spent months interviewing, collating, etc inthe spring of 1945,just to help sort out 'not proved' from real monsters.

Michael, Bill, would you accept the Scottish verdict of 'not proven', given the nature of the evidence ? Bill, can we just close some of these disputes without jurisprudence? Regards

Opuscalgary 20:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Opuscalgary 20:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crumbs

The Michael Shrimpton? I only ask because I used to work at the Immigration Appellate Authority as a typist, and Michael Shrimpton's dictations were generally more entertaining than those from the other adjudicators. -Ashley Pomeroy 15:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, definitely the same guy. Since first encountering him on Talk:De Havilland Comet I've become quite an aficionado of Mr Shrimpton's work - I wonder if any of his adjudications from the AIT are accessable anywhere? :) FiggyBee 18:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed 'the' Michael Shrimpton. This German propaganda claim was refuted in John Taylor in the mid-60s. Nazi propaganda has no business on Wikipedia. The problem is that aggressive Nazi sympathisers, or pro-Germans, keep aggressively editing this entry, and generally refuse to engage in argument. At the very least the article should refer to John Taylor's research and make it clear that the claims of the Nazi Propaganda Ministry are hotly dispute. It should also be made clear that Nazi records are unreliable, and that the claim that the Me262 was first was made initially by the German Propaganda Ministry Michael Shrimpton (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 18 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Michael Shrimpton page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

false positive, you can report it to my operator

. Thanks,

talk) 00:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your edits to

reliable independent sources and let others decide what changes actually get made. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I am sorry, I do not accept that there has been any breach of core policy, and I note that you have not itemised any. The article as it stands is factually accurate, fair and balanced. I am aware that Psychonaut wishes to misuse it as an attack piece, but that is cause for blocking him, not me. Please escalate this dispute forthwith. Michael Shrimpton (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael Shrimpton. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

^Pocketed 12:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

With respect the source of the problem is Psychonaut, to whom your with respect impertinent warning should be addressed. All I am trying to do is to introduce balance and fairness to an attack piece largely drafted by him. All the statements in my revisions are factually accurate, unlike Psychonaut's original attack piece, which relied in part on tabloid journalism from a sleazy, pro-EU, British regional newspaper, the Bucks Herald. As often when people reply on tabloid journalism they end up recycling factual errors, which would never have been put into print by a professional journalist. As an example Psychonaut, whoever he or she is, continually recycled the absurd claim by the Bucks Herald that the British Defence Secretary in 2012 was Phillip Dunne, a junior minister in another department.

I cannot help it if the facts show the prosecutions of me to have been malicious. Each was, and involved the commission of serious criminal offences by police officers, now under investigation. I can document each factual assertion I have made if need be. To take an example - the fact that Hammond's Private Secretary rang me, on a number I had given, makes a nonsense of the bomb hoax prosecution. However that is what happened, as shown in MOD and my phone logs, and that is how the prosecution opened their case, which was nonsense on stilts from beginning to end. Psychonaut cannot accept that the call was incoming not outgoing, but with respect appears to have trouble accepting facts. That is his problem, with respect, not mine nor Wikiepedia's.

Your mechanisms for dispute resolution are wholly inadequate and amount to censorship. The Talk page is a waste of time and consensus with someone as obsessive and discourteous as Psychonaut, with respect, is not possible. He has corrected one glaring factual error, getting the name of the Defence Secretary right for the first time, but the piece as it appears is wildly imbalanced, obsessing on my convictions at the expense of the rest of my life, and when discussing the convictions leaves out the fact that they are not final, are subject to challenge via the proper authority, and gives the prosecution version of events only, i.e. gives a distorted account.

I have today asked that this matter be referred to Wikipedia's General Counsel. Reputations in Britain are protected by law - Psychonaut is clearly used to jurisdictions where reputations do not matter and there is a free for all. You are putting Wikipedia at risk of a law suit for defamation. Michael Shrimpton (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source of the problem is you, adopting the wrong approach. The correct approach is to identify errors on the Talk page, keepign the comments small, focused and actionable (in the sense that people can act on them without spending months researching). So: "In para beginning foo, please change text bar to baz based on the following sources". Don't snowstorm the talk page within uhndreds of requests, keep calm, don't accuse everybody else of being biased or writing a hit piece,

assume good faith. I cannot promoise you'll get the text you want every time, but I can promise that if you do those things you will stand some chance, whereas what you are doing right now is doomed to fail, because it always does. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I apologise - the request to refer this matter to Wikipdedia's General Counsel should have been restricted to off-page communications. Clearly Psychonaut's continued use of Wikipedia to mount personal attacks on me, using inaccurate or distorted information, is headed into libel territory and risks dragging Wikipedia through the British courts.

I strongly suggest that efforts be made to prevent Psychonaut and the small group working with him from vandalising my biography in this way.

I repeat my earlier observation that the Talk page is ineffectual as a dispute resolution mechanism. Psychonaut's interest, with respect, is confined to publishing an attack piece. He has shown no interest in balancing the biography of me, and is indulging in personal abuse. Since he or she is the one using abusive comments, such as "conspiracy theorist", I respectfully suggest that comments about civility are directed towards him or her. Michael Shrimpton (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Michael Shrimpton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I respectfully request that I be unblocked. I have already apologised for the online reference to my email today requesting that Psychonaut's attack piece upon me be referred to Wikipedia's General Counsel. I had not appreciated that aspect of Wikipedia policy - this is the first time that I have been libelled on Wikipedia. This does not mean that I do not wish the matter to be referred to your General Counsel, who will be able to advise you. I undertake not to further refer to any communications between myself and General Counsel online. As to the underlying dispute the biography of me clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards of fairness and accuracy and requires substantial revision. The edits I drafted were factually accurate and can be documented if need be. Michael Shrimpton (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While you have an outstanding legal issue in play, you will not be unblocked. You are welcome to request another unblock request once you have resolved the issue with Wikipedia's General Counsel, or if you unconditionally withdraw the legal threat. This isn't punitive; while there's a legal issue in play, it's simply inappropriate to allow you to edit Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The decline is fair, with respect, and I accept is in accordance with Wikipedia's published policy. If General Counsel can be encouraged to respond promptly to my email of today that would be helpful.Michael Shrimpton (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you saw fit to continue you legal threats on this talk page, your right to edit the page has been revoked. Should you wish to make further unblock requests, Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System is available, but you had better abstain from any further talk of counsels, domiciles etc. Favonian (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban

In this discussion the community of editors of this Wikipedia has reached consensus to eject you from this collaborative project and ban you from editing the English Wikipedia anywhere. While the block discussed above on your talk page is a technical measure to prevent you from editing with this account, a site ban is a social decision that your edits are no longer appreciated at all. You may want to read the Wikipedia:Banning policy for details. Any appeals to the banning decision may be made via the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. De728631 (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]