User talk:76.19.222.40

Vandalism Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User talk:Sox23, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Your vandalism will NOT be tolerated. Thank you.

I don't have a problem changing the destinations to your table, but bring it up in a discussion on the Lynx Aviation talk page first. Sox23 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets see, the all mighty WP:AIRLINES, the gods of aviation the rulers of the aviation articles. There all mighty group that cares more about country flags listed next to destinations(what a joke, who came up with that, state flags yes obviously, but country flags?) or that thinks people want to have to pass over a list of destinations if they don't care about it. Like that is what people really think about, "wow, I want to know how many airplanes and all the destinations this airlines has, I'm going to go look it up on wiki"(because we all know this information is so hard to find you have to go to the airlines front page and click the box to see all of them) But yet the entire article could read like a 3 year old wrote it, but no that is not the concern of WP:AIRLINES, but if there is a country flag next to a destination they are all over it.

Oh yea, bring it up in the talk page first. Then wait a few months for anybody to reply, or else wait a few days, nobody replies and then edit the article and have somebody revert it in 60 seconds. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Lynx Aviation, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Oh, well Harry finally got his payback on me. I could tell you could not stand that I was right about the Ryanair incident. I also like how you got so upset that your minor incident was not going to be included that went ahead and removed the incidents that the Irish aviation authorities labeled as serious incidents and had been in the article for a few years. Harry do wiki a favor and stay away from aviation articles, you obviously have the same insight into aviation as a two year old has into biology. Do me a favor, since this is two personal attacks in 24hrs, PLEASE permanently block me so I don't waste anymore of my time on this excuse of an encyclopedia. After trying to help this site out, it is obvious that this site is a joke. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The minute you need to resort to personal abuse, you have lost the argument. I hope that is a lesson you have learned for the future. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said... Thank you for proving my point. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The minute you said this you lost all credibility,

"Flight 30 is notable because a big hole appeared in the aircraft, Flight 9336 is notable because there were injuries"(EARACHES)

"As for damage to an object or damage to people, I think most people would say that physical injuries to people are far more serious than repairable damage to an aircraft." (YEAH AN EXPLOSION THAT RIPS A HOLE IN THE SIDE OF AN AIRCRAFT IS MUCH LESS SERIOUS THAN EARACHES.)

"You keep ignoring the potentially serious injuries that cause 26 people to be sent to hospital." (ARE YOU AN ATTORNEY HARRY?? I BET THERE IS SOME LAWYER GETTING READY TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST RYANAIR USING THEM EXACT SAME WORDS, PERMANENT EAR DAMAGE, MAYBE THE PILOT SHOULD HAVE TOLD THEM TO SUCK ON SOME CANDY OR CHEW GUM BEFORE HE STARTED THE DESCENT!!!)

As someone who claims to know so much about aviation, you might want to acquaint yourself with http://www.avherald.com. If an incident is a C (crash) or an A (accident) on that site, it is serious enough to be considered for inclusion. (HA, IT STILL MAKES ME LAUGH EVERYTIME I READ THAT COMMENT)

"It is (at www.avherald com, which takes it beyond the tabloid journalism and classifies it as an "accident" rather than an incident) so there is no reason why this adequately sourced addition should be removed, especially when the dangerous approaches paragraph remains." (OH YEAH THE AVHERALD, THERE WEBSITE IS TRULY AMAZING AND THE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IS BEYOND BELIEF. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT A DECOMPRESSION IS MUCH MORE SERIOUS THAN PILOTS ATTEMPTING TO FLY AN IFR APPROACH WHEN THE ILS IS OUT OF SERVICE WITH LOW CLOUDS AND NOT REALIZING IT UNTIL THEY BROKE OUT OF THE CLOUDS A FEW HUNDRED FEET AND REALIZED THEY WERE ALREADY HALF WAY OVER THE RUNWAY, GOING TO FAST, AND THEN GOING AND HOLDING FOR AN HOUR WHILE THE TWO PILOTS TRIED TO REPROGRAM THE FMS WHILE 3 OTHER PLANES WERE HOLDING ABOVE THEM. OH THEN THE OTHER CASE WHERE THE PILOT INSTEAD OF DOING A MISSED APPROACH, BANKS THE AIRCRAFT HARD TO THE RIGHT AT LOW ALTITUDE AND PROCEEDS TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE AIRPORT A FEW HUNDRED FEET ABOVE THE GROUND A LOW SPEED)

"Nothing wrong with the plane??? Planes just routinely depressurise for no reason do they?"(NOT EVERYDAY BUT PROBABLY ONE OF THE MORE COMMON EVENTS, ITS AMAZING THAT WE DON'T HAVE THOUSANDS OF DEAD PEOPLE EVERY YEAR BECAUSE DECOMPRESSION IS SUCH A SERIOUS INCIDENT IN YOUR OPINION)

Also as someone who claims to know about aviation, you should know that rapid decompression and descent can lead to serious inner ear problems. The injuries may have been "all in their heads", but that is because it's where their inner ears are. The were NO injuries in the QANTAS 30 incident. Despite being more spectacular, it was not as serious as the Ryanair incident, (I THINK YOU ARE CONFUSING RAPID DECOMPRESSION WITH EXPLOSIVE DECOMPRESSION, ALSO THE PILOTS GET WARNINGS AND THE MASKS DROP BEFORE PRESSURIZATION ALTITUDE GETS TOO HIGH SO ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE MOST LIKELY DOWN BELOW 10,000FEET BEFORE ANYTHING SERIOUS CAN HAPPEN. BUT YOUR SO RIGHT THAT THE QUANTAS INCIDENT IS LESS SERIOUS, THAT IS WHY THE NEXT DAY THE RYANAIR PLANE WAS FLYING AGAIN AND THE QANTAS FLIGHT WAS GETTING THE HOLE IN THE SIDE OF FUSELAGE FIXED)

HARRY MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU SHOULD FOR THE FAA, IT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER "YEAH I KNOW I WAS DRUNK WHILE I WAS FLYING, BUT NOBODY GOT HURT." --76.19.222.40 (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

David Learmount, the UK's leading aviation expert, agrees with me http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2008/08/air-scares.html; they are both as notable as each other (which is not very), so if one deserves its own article, the other at least deserves a mention.Harry the Dog WOOF 20:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Normally when a person tries to prove a point they provide something that backs up their point. I think you should reread that entire article. I could copy and paste the entire article because it backs up everything I said but that would take up too much space.

"I'll probably get murdered for telling you this, but even without donning an oxygen mask, a fit young person who doesn't smoke would probably not suffer unconsciousness during the brief period it takes for the aircraft to get down to below about 20,000ft. Anyone who did suffer unconsciousness would be unlikely to have brain damage, because they would still have been breathing air, even if at a pressure that did not sustain their brain at a fully functioning level, and the unconsciousness would have been so brief.Just get used to the reality. Go-arounds and sudden decompressions are seriously frightening, but hardly ever dangerous. The only people who love them are journalists." --76.19.222.40 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all I was arguing on the Ryanair TP was that the Qantas incident was no more notable that the Ryanair incident. What you have posted above confirms that. I didn't say anything about masks. In that respect there is no difference to the QANTAS difference. What you didn't post from the Learmount article is "The pressure drop will hurt everybody's ears badly, and anybody who has a serious cold may suffer ruptured eardrums (they will eventually heal, I am reliably informed)." That's what I was saying; ear damage to a person is more serious than damage to a piece of machinery that didn't affect the aircraft's ability to fly safely.

As I said, you need to take a step back from your own arrogance, learn from what I and others have told you and stop resorting to personal abuse. It won't get you anywhere, in Wikipedia or anywhere else in life. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What you posted above does not confirm it. Seriously, are you slow or something? Ryanair = decompression incident, Qantas = explosion ripping a hole in the side of the fuselage causing decompression. Most likely cause of Ryanair incident = pilot forgetting to move a switch, cause of Qantas incident = explosion. The big difference being the hole in the side of the aircraft, Harry not one person backed you up except for one user that hates ryanair and tries to include anything bad about the airline. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Learmount is saying that the two incidents are no more notable than each other in terms of danger to the aircraft or to the people on board. Actually, there were more serious injuries on the FR plane than on the QANTAS (none). I was actually arguing that all such non-notable incidents be removed, but I guess you missed that. I don't think WP policy is being adhered to properly in many similar instances. I was not the person who originally added the Ryanair incident. I only re-added it so that proper Wikipedia procedure (discussion on the TP) could be followed. By your own admission on this page you hold Wikipedia procedures in contempt ("Oh yea, bring it up in the talk page first. Then wait a few months for anybody to reply, or else wait a few days, nobody replies and then edit the article and have somebody revert it in 60 seconds") and it is you who are clashing with many other editors because of your arrogance. As I say, take a deep breath, take a step back and learn how to play nice in the sandbox. You will have a much happier life I suspect. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Harry, you really got me now!!! For one, my comment above was in reference to Lynx aviation which is a small regional airline and the article does not get much attention. You could make a comment in the talk page and it is most likely that you will get no responses because A.) Lynx aviation is a small airline B.)It is a feeder service for Frontier, so most people do not even know about lynx or care about it. Ryanair on the other hand is a large airline, is a controversial airline, and its wiki page probably gets a lot of hits a day. You seem to have a problem with wiki policy also, seeing that you still have a problem with the consensus on the talk page of ryanair that you feel it necessary to come and add things back to my talk page last week after I had deleted them, and then today you saw an opportunity. Obviously you have been waiting for me to do something wrong, because you didn't get your way at Ryanair. You didn't get your way because you were completely wrong, not because of me.

See Harry it is very simple for people with half a brain to figure out:

Very serious = Aloha Airlines Flight 243 Serious incident = Qantas Flight 30 Minor incident = Ryanair FR9336

If nobody had been injured or killed in Aloha 243, it still would be very serious. If 50 people had been injured in Ryanair it would still be less serious. Simple reason is that it is what potentially could happen that matters. Worst case scenario of Ryanair incident was earaches. There was no risk to the aircraft and no risk to lives. (unless a heart attack or something) That is why pilots who violate regulations can end up losing their careers because of something that COULD have happened. That is why Irish aviation authority's labeled the dangerous approaches serious incidents and why they will label the Ryanair incident as a simple incident(like they did with the Aer Lingus decompression where more people were injured)So apparently the Irish aviation authority's are wrong in your opinion. Because they (like all aviation investigators) care more about the potential outcome of an event than they do about the injury count.

Anyway I am done arguing with you, if you feel so strongly about it you should go over to the Qantas Flight 30 page and have a discussion there or nominate it for deletion. But you won't do that because you really don't care about any of this, all you care about is that you feel like I won the argument on the Ryanair incident and that is why you have a problem with me. Or else go over to the WP:AIRLINE page and have a discussion with them (but they might be busy on there flag and fleet number crusade)

Have a nice life, your a real winner--76.19.222.40 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Once your block has expired, you are free to edit Wikipedia again. However, if you resort to personal abuse against another editor on one more occasion, you will be blocked again for a longer period. If this behaviour continues, you risk being blocked indefinitely. Please read the policy on making personal attacks and in future comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Wiki Wiki Tembo (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself, I would prefer to use one of my other ip's so harry can't follow me around anyway, please block me permanently. The guy is obviously a retard, Harry you must live a really interesting life that you can spend 2 hours a day for the past two years (probably more time before you registered) editing on wiki. Your life must be so interesting. Ha

Wiki Tembo (AKA Harry) were you a hall monitor in high school? I bet you wished that you could give the kids that beat the fuck out of you and put you in a trash can everyday a written warning like on wiki, fucking retard, go suck harry's cock, all you have to do is unzip your pants, bend over and try to reach your 2 inch cock, because wiki tembo = harry (your not fooling anybody)

Harry your such a fagot, Jeffrey S. Porter, coincidence, I think not!!! Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry

--76.19.222.40 (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your not fooling anybody Harry, wiki tempo comes along and gives me another warning. Wiki tempo has a very few edits, one of which happens to be the Ryanair and what a coincidence it happened to be about the incident you cared so much about. Another was an article which was made up of 75% of you and wiki tempo's contributes. Get real buddy, your not fooling anybody. Stop editing my talk page and I will be talking to some administrators about your actions. You have not followed wiki procedure even when I was blocked today you did not follow wiki procedure and you are also using a sock puppet. Ha, you really must be lacking in the brain compartment, I accuse a person of being you, and suddenly a few minutes later you write back saying that it is untrue!!!

This is going to get taken care of by administrators tomorrow, I am not going to be harassed by you.

Friends World Committee for Consultation

Lakefield College School

Jeffrey S. Porter

Ryanair

User talk:76.19.222.40

These are the only articles edited under wiki tempo, and all of them also have substantial edits from you harry.

You have been harassing me on my own talk page. You have gotten me blocked even after the person I abused only gave me a warning. Followed later by a warning from you for the same incident (double warning???) followed by a block, all while I slept. Rule, is that it is warning, final warning, block. You did not follow rules, you are also using a sock puppet, and you are also harassing me on my own talk page.

--76.19.222.40 (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

---