Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[28_Condor]

The most boring in this forum are these type of personnal attack

I want reference of research, not opinions...

I started with wikipedia too (why not?):

A meeting was held on 16 March 1939 to consider the question of when the 100 octane fuel should be introduced to general use for all RAF aircraft, and what squadrons, number and type, were to be supplied. The decision taken was that there would be an initial delivery to 16 fighter and two twin-engined bomber squadrons by September 1940.[26] However, this was based on a pre-war assumption that US supplies would be denied to Britain in wartime, which would limit the numbers of front-line units able to use the fuel.[27] On the outbreak of war this problem disappeared; production of the new fuel in the US, and in other parts of the world, increased more quickly than expected with the adoption of new refining techniques. As a result 100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940.[28] [N 1]

(...)
[28] Payton-Smith, D J. Oil: A Study of War-time Policy and Administration. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1971. (no ISBN) SBN 1-1630074-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraf..._aviation_fuel

If this is wrong I want references about

[Glider]

Kurfurst
Your last posting, I believe they call that a very reflective piece.

[Sutts]

Yes, Kurfürst argument totally busted.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 28_Condor

The most boring in this forum are these type of personnal attack

I want reference of research, not opinions...

I started with wikipedia too (why not?):


(...)
[28] Payton-Smith, D J. Oil: A Study of War-time Policy and Administration. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1971. (no ISBN) SBN 1-1630074-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraf..._aviation_fuel

If this is wrong I want references about

I think you will find that people find Wikipedia often unreliable and this is for a reason. All sorts of fanatics edit it, and for many of them its often more important to have their own opinion in there instead of creating good articles.

Its not too difficult to find out that the editor falsifying wikipedia was Minorhistorian, NZTyphoons local handle. He was busy pushing that agenda (and equally busy removing any references to the German use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle in all articles. As a matter of fact, he seems to be very busy degrading any Luftwaffe related article).

He added the line "100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940" and 'quoted' Payton-Smith, because wikipedia generally require references, but in reality Payton-Smith says such thing nowhere.

It's quite simply that our friend NZTyphoon wanted his own opinion represented there, and to give weight to it he falsified the source.

Quite a bit like when lane manipulated the May 1940 paper on his website.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I think you will find that people find Wikipedia often unreliable and this is for a reason. All sorts of fanatics edit it, and for many of them its often more important to have their own opinion in there instead of creating good articles.

Comedy gold.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I think you will find that people find Wikipedia often unreliable and this is for a reason. All sorts of fanatics edit it, and for many of them its often more important to have their own opinion in there instead of creating good articles.

How many times have you had temporary bans from editing items on Wikipedia? I think it was eight, but it might have changed by now.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I think you will find that people find Wikipedia often unreliable and this is for a reason. All sorts of fanatics edit it, and for many of them its often more important to have their own opinion in there instead of creating good articles.

Its not too difficult to find out that the editor falsifying wikipedia was Minorhistorian, NZTyphoons local handle. He was busy pushing that agenda (and equally busy removing any references to the German use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle in all articles. As a matter of fact, he seems to be very busy degrading any Luftwaffe related article).

He added the line "100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940" and 'quoted' Payton-Smith, because wikipedia generally require references, but in reality Payton-Smith says such thing nowhere.

It's quite simply that our friend NZTyphoon wanted his own opinion represented there, and to give weight to it he falsified the source.

Quite a bit like when lane manipulated the May 1940 paper on his website.

This from the "editor" who has been blocked from editing in Wikipedia: because of his disruptive and contentious attitude

after being blocked several times before: then tried to sneak in again under his ISP no. and has been blocked - again:

and his "contributions" like these: and these - meant degrading every article on Allied equipment he could lay his paws on while busily promoting everything German, and tying up the discussion pages with endless conflicts because of his constant abuse of references. That he takes himself so seriously - priceless!

[Kurfürst]

Gee Jeff, you really have sooo many more important issues in your life, eh?

I note though that you are very silent about that falsified 'quote' from Payton-Smith you have inserted into that article I mentioned.

I can't be bothered to go into lenghts about your latest rant, but its suffice to say that you have been deeply involved in degrading articles on Wikipedia. You have been especially bent on degrading articles about the Bf 109 and Fw 190, for whatever reason, I guess its some sort of sick way to express your admiration to the Spitfire.

Your "contributions" are largely limited to the passion of deleting and falsifying information in that article. You seem to be hell bent on inserting false climb rates and engine ratings for the 109K, deleting referenced specs for the G-10 , removing references to Mine shells use in the Battle of Britain , repeatedly removing references to German 100 octane production with the pretext that they are 'almost impossible to access' and so on.

Who do you think you are kidding? Its all too obvious from the above edits what your agenda is, and that you have nothing better to do with your life than this petty for of existence. As for the block on wikipedia, I recall you had a buddy there with, let's just say, an interesting psychological profile, who was going after my edits, kept removing them, just like he did get into conflict with every other editor. He was, much like yourself, a student in his early 20s having nothing better to do with his life than to edit wikipedia all day, and getting his daily satisfaction from it. He was blocked repeatedly for his behaviour, and eventually normal interaction with others was just too much to him and he quit. As for me, I was simply blocked by an admin who has a record of going after German editors and seeked an excuse to do so, despite the fact that all my edits were constructive. It doesn't really matter, because I have already brought up all the articles I wanted to sufficiently good level that not much work is needed there.

Anyone who has edited wiki fully knows that it has its share of frustrated nutjobs who lead a miserable life and try to be someone on the internet. They have all the day for scheming and 'wikipolitics', because having the last word there is their life's only satisfaction and purpose. NZTyphoon/Minorhistorian's day are basically spent like this - he amuses himself as some sort of ultimate expert, deciding over the validity other people's contributions, posting ridiculus warnings on their talk page about 'disruptive' edits, stalking them, and reporting them to the administrators if he can't have his way. He pretty much does the same here, as he only registrered to this discussion board to stalk me because of his earlier frustrations he couldn't yet work out for himself, and he goes on for a hundred posts frothing about me and more recently Crumpp just to get a response. I guess its the peak of his day when he finally gets one.

I am sorry to say but I can't be bothered about it.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Anyone who has edited wiki fully knows that it has its share of frustrated nutjobs who lead a miserable life and try to be someone on the internet.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Gee Jeff, you really have sooo many more important issues in your life, eh?

I note though that you are very silent about that falsified 'quote' from Payton-Smith you have inserted into that article I mentioned.

I can't be bothered to go into lenghts about your latest rant, but its suffice to say that you have been deeply involved in degrading articles on Wikipedia. You have been especially bent on degrading articles about the Bf 109 and Fw 190, for whatever reason, I guess its some sort of sick way to express your admiration to the Spitfire.

Your "contributions" are largely limited to the passion of deleting and falsifying information in that article. You seem to be hell bent on inserting false climb rates and engine ratings for the 109K, deleting referenced specs for the G-10 , removing references to Mine shells use in the Battle of Britain , repeatedly removing references to German 100 octane production with the pretext that they are 'almost impossible to access' and so on.

Who do you think you are kidding? Its all too obvious from the above edits what your agenda is, and that you have nothing better to do with your life than this petty for of existence. As for the block on wikipedia, I recall you had a buddy there with, let's just say, an interesting psychological profile, who was going after my edits, kept removing them, just like he did get into conflict with every other editor. He was, much like yourself, a student in his early 20s having nothing better to do with his life than to edit wikipedia all day, and getting his daily satisfaction from it. He was blocked repeatedly for his behaviour, and eventually normal interaction with others was just too much to him and he quit. As for me, I was simply blocked by an admin who has a record of going after German editors and seeked an excuse to do so, despite the fact that all my edits were constructive. It doesn't really matter, because I have already brought up all the articles I wanted to sufficiently good level that not much work is needed there.

Anyone who has edited wiki fully knows that it has its share of frustrated nutjobs who lead a miserable life and try to be someone on the internet. They have all the day for scheming and 'wikipolitics', because having the last word there is their life's only satisfaction and purpose. NZTyphoon/Minorhistorian's day are basically spent like this - he amuses himself as some sort of ultimate expert, deciding over the validity other people's contributions, posting ridiculus warnings on their talk page about 'disruptive' edits, stalking them, and reporting them to the administrators if he can't have his way. He pretty much does the same here, as he only registrered to this discussion board to stalk me because of his earlier frustrations he couldn't yet work out for himself, and he goes on for a hundred posts frothing about me and more recently Crumpp just to get a response. I guess its the peak of his day when he finally gets one. I

I am sorry to say but I can't be bothered about it.

Congratulations! I've been on the Internet since '94 and this is the single most hypocritical post I have ever seen.

Every single point you made can be levelled at you. X10

Edit: and the absence of any form of argument other than personal attacks is also noted.
Oh and don't kid yourself - people aren't stalking you, they are stalking the facts