Jim G. Smtih

Rafale Edits

Hi, I reverted your edits on the Dassault Rafale article. I did it for 2 reasons:

1. The version you used at a starting point was apparently an old one. Some of the lastest edits were lost.
2. A lot of the text you used are direct copies from other websites like this one [1]. It is generaly considered to be a copyright violation (See FAQ), except if you own the copyright for these texts of course.

Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Sylvain Mielot 05:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

More Rafale Edits

I too have reverted your edits to the Dassault Rafale article for the same reasons listed above,

1. Your edits are removing large sections of recent material, including some excellent images which other users have went to the trouble of adding.
2. The article quoted above is a copyright violation.

Like the user above I too am happy to answer and questions you might have, Mark83 14:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Eurofighter Typhoon

Hi. Saw you had added substantial material, including a few allegations regarding the UK and the Saudis. I've reverted your edits, because sentences like "(...) all this are speculative UK press to paint a farce fighter 'sexy'", "(...) that they also have better shape design and composit materials on airframes!", and "The airline doesn’t want to resume the flights because the number of people willing to fly from Britain to Saudi Arabia has sharply declined in the last two years because of terrorism fears. british are ready to sell their mothers for money earnings!", as these IMHO are POV at worst, and unreferenced at best. Feel free to add them back into the article, but please add sources for your allegations! If you have any questions regarding this, feel free to ask! Bjelleklang - talk 09:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

March 2006

Your most recent set of edits to Eurofighter Typhoon is vandalism -- nonsense, poor grammar, strong POV, personal attacks. Please keep your frustrations away from Wikipedia pages. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Dien Bien Phu

Hallo Jim- I noticed your edits to Battle of Dien Bien Phu. It's really commendable that you have taken an interest in the Encyclopaedia, but you might find that it's best to discuss any major changes on the relevant talk page first, and seek consensus before going ahead. Fluent Anglophone editors can also then give you a hand with spelling and grammar and thus ensure that your contributions are of an acceptably high quality. It also seems to me that you are trying to project a certain 'Point of View' in your edits; that is not allowed here. The encyclopaedia requires actual, verifiable, and balanced facts, not unverifiable opinion (sometimes called 'Original research'). The blue links point to pages that explain these policies and may be of use to you. All the best, Badgerpatrol 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hallo again Jim- Is there any reason why you are deleting some of the references given for the above article? If you can explain why the sources you added cannot exist side-by-side with the existing ones, then please give it, either here, on my talk page, on the article's talk page, or, best of all, in your edit summary (the small box that appears below an edit in progress and allows one to explain the rationale behind an edit). All the best, Badgerpatrol 12:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)