Talk:Swiss Air Force/Archives/2015/December

Not relevant

As it is rather predictable that an edit war will follow...

To my opinion, the next section is irrelevant and removed by me. There are approximately 100 additional full-time job positions, as well as structural measures on two military airfields (Militärflugplatz Emmen & Meiringen air base, the main Base for this QRA Payerne Air Base has already the needed buildings) as well as on the Geneva Airport and Zürich Airport required. The first step will be made in January 2016: During these 50 weeks, two armed F / A-18 are on QRA15 weekdays 8-18h. 2017 this presence will be expanded to 365 days. From 2019 the Jets will be available 6-22h, and then in the end of 2020, the expansion to 24 hours during 365 days will be made..

To my opinion, it contains to much too minor details that have no relevance for the encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 12:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

air policing is relevant, the times of armt qra is relevant. FFA P-16 (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps air policing is important, but certainly not how the organisation is built up. And that is what you are describing in irrelevant detail. And as expected, you have started an edit war over it, as you do about every flipping detail. The Banner talk 12:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting that in all acviatic topics you only delet informations out by swiss avitaic topics. the page is about the swiss air force so also build up s and future plans are informations who belong here. So stop your anti swiss aviatic war!FFA P-16 (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC) And YOU started the Editwar, you FIRST deledtet out everything after you went to the talkpage! stop wikihounding me!FFA P-16 (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let me tell you this: the next time you come with false accusations and personal attacks, I will bring you to AN/I. I have enough of your battlefield mentality and incompetence. The Banner talk 13:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@FFA P-16:. The best approach if someone reverts you is to open a discussion on your proposed edit. I notice that you have failed to respect the Be Bold-Revert-Discuss (WP:BRD) guideline and instead resorted to edit warring. If you were reported at WP:ANEW you might well earn an account block.

@The Banner:. The best approach if someone doesn't accept your revert is to open a discussion on the edit instead of edit warring. I notice that you breached the three-revert rule (WP:3RR). If you were reported at WP:ANEW you too might well earn an account block.

It really doesn't matter what state the article is in while the dispute is settled, Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. I see valid concerns on both sides here (and some less valid ones). If you guys are willing to discuss this politely and avoid winding each other up, I'll be glad to help things along as best I can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not go over the three reverts (I left home instead) and I started a discussion straight away knowing that FFA never agrees with my edits. The Banner talk 16:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I based my comment on these three diffs 123, each of which appears to be your good self reverting FFA, all over the same edit and all within 24 hrs. I don't think WP:3RR is concerned about parallel discussions, but perhaps I have missed something. But never mind, the important thing is whether any of the deleted material is worth restoring. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have now taken a look at the contended material and restored what I (initially) regard as significant. Please think of this as a starter for ten. But, if you wish to edit it towards your own point of view (whether for more detail or less), please also consider discussing your changes here first, otherwise war is likely to break out again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)