    I look at a lot of articles such as BillCJ and many others and it reminds me of books that were published in the 1950  lots and lots of facts boring dull uninteresting pictures  picture with no history surrounding what is being published  In the 198090s a lot of True Aviation historians ie Roger Freeman Jeff Ethell Warbirds Worldwide etc found that aviation historians wanted and needed history recorded  The captions of their books detailed who what when where etc  As we progressed into the 2000s I am finding that todays writers unfortunately want to dumb down the article  instead of giving all the details to allow the readers to decide how much level of detail he wants  Again unfortunately BillCJ as well as others want to take the Dick  Jane approach to aviation historyThis is suppose to be an online referenceencyclopedia  often when you Google an item the wiki article is the first reference to popup so this will be unfortunately the first and only reference many will have for a subject  A subject has to include everyone that references and item whether it be a 4 year old doing his first model airplane the aviation historian the F16 Buff  These articles are also used by serious models who want the detailsArticles only tell part of the story  you need the pictures to compliment and point out what the article is discussing  In the same vein the pictures need the same level of detailed study if possible and care that is place in creating the entire article  Having a great and fantastic article such as the F16 with kindergarten captions makes the entire article pointlessIt is also unfortunate that other editors like Askari Mark feels that detailed captions are meaningless to most readers  again you can not have an online referenceencyclopedia without filling crossing the t and doting the is  Without detailed captions it like having no reference section  sure you can print captions that state  Gee an F16 in Flight   especially when it is clear that the airplane is sitting on the ground  Or the case of one article Aircraft is on a bombrun when it was clear from the picture that the bombbay doors were closed no guns in the waist position and the detailed history showed the aircraft actually was a trainer and never left the United StateBillCJ also mentioned  are you seriously suggesting that  serious historians  only read WP articles for the pictures   it is a proven fact that 90 of all information processed by humans come from Visual data ie pictures etc  this is the reason Picture books are popular with preschoolers  The first thing a majority humans look out when reading any thing is the pictures  if the pictures are interesting then many people will stop and read  If an aviation historian comes across an article that details the subject matter then he will stop and read the contentsIt is also been said that this article is not for the F16 Buffs  if this is the case then  why have technical specifications why have details on each variation   Why have the nuts and bolts of each individual user Etc Etc EtcWhy have detailed information regarding anything regarding the aircraft if this subject is not going to reach out to those who can say yes this is true ie the historianbuff  If you are going to have the nuts and bolts in the article then you have to carry this same thought patterns over to have the nuts and bolts details in the photo captions for example B52 Specifications B52 Costs B52 Variants etc  this type of informations IS for the Aviation Historian  Buff and generally not for the casual reader which is MY point in having detailed captionsIf we dumbdown the photocaptions for the causual reader then this level of details Specifications costs variations also needs to be removed as it will only confuse the  casual reader  and will lead to people calling all such information  gobbledygook If we dumbdown the photocaptions or call detailed information  gobbledygook to most readers  then terms such as Wing area Airfoil Zerolift drag coefficient Drag area Aspect ratio Maximum speed Combat radius Ferry range Service ceiling Rate of climb Wing loading Thrustweight Lifttodrag ratio are gobbledygook to most nonaviation readersBillCJ has also mentioned that Wiki is not the place for F16 Buffs to write article  This is complete opposite what the founders of wiki wanted when this project wikipedia as a whole dreamed many many years ago  Wiki w

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
    I look at a lot of articles such as BillCJ and many others and it reminds me of books that were published in the 1950  lots and lots of facts boring dull uninteresting pictures  picture with no history surrounding what is being published  In the 198090s a lot of True Aviation historians ie Roger Freeman Jeff Ethell Warbirds Worldwide etc found that aviation historians wanted and needed history recorded  The captions of their books detailed who what when where etc  As we progressed into the 2000s I am finding that todays writers unfortunately want to dumb down the article  instead of giving all the details to allow the readers to decide how much level of detail he wants  Again unfortunately BillCJ as well as others want to take the Dick  Jane approach to aviation historyThis is suppose to be an online referenceencyclopedia  often when you Google an item the wiki article is the first reference to popup so this will be unfortunately the first and only reference many will have for a subject  A subject has to include everyone that references and item whether it be a 4 year old doing his first model airplane the aviation historian the F16 Buff  These articles are also used by serious models who want the detailsArticles only tell part of the story  you need the pictures to compliment and point out what the article is discussing  In the same vein the pictures need the same level of detailed study if possible and care that is place in creating the entire article  Having a great and fantastic article such as the F16 with kindergarten captions makes the entire article pointlessIt is also unfortunate that other editors like Askari Mark feels that detailed captions are meaningless to most readers  again you can not have an online referenceencyclopedia without filling crossing the t and doting the is  Without detailed captions it like having no reference section  sure you can print captions that state  Gee an F16 in Flight   especially when it is clear that the airplane is sitting on the ground  Or the case of one article Aircraft is on a bombrun when it was clear from the picture that the bombbay doors were closed no guns in the waist position and the detailed history showed the aircraft actually was a trainer and never left the United StateBillCJ also mentioned  are you seriously suggesting that  serious historians  only read WP articles for the pictures   it is a proven fact that 90 of all information processed by humans come from Visual data ie pictures etc  this is the reason Picture books are popular with preschoolers  The first thing a majority humans look out when reading any thing is the pictures  if the pictures are interesting then many people will stop and read  If an aviation historian comes across an article that details the subject matter then he will stop and read the contentsIt is also been said that this article is not for the F16 Buffs  if this is the case then  why have technical specifications why have details on each variation   Why have the nuts and bolts of each individual user Etc Etc EtcWhy have detailed information regarding anything regarding the aircraft if this subject is not going to reach out to those who can say yes this is true ie the historianbuff  If you are going to have the nuts and bolts in the article then you have to carry this same thought patterns over to have the nuts and bolts details in the photo captions for example B52 Specifications B52 Costs B52 Variants etc  this type of informations IS for the Aviation Historian  Buff and generally not for the casual reader which is MY point in having detailed captionsIf we dumbdown the photocaptions for the causual reader then this level of details Specifications costs variations also needs to be removed as it will only confuse the  casual reader  and will lead to people calling all such information  gobbledygook If we dumbdown the photocaptions or call detailed information  gobbledygook to most readers  then terms such as Wing area Airfoil Zerolift drag coefficient Drag area Aspect ratio Maximum speed Combat radius Ferry range Service ceiling Rate of climb Wing loading Thrustweight Lifttodrag ratio are gobbledygook to most nonaviation readersBillCJ has also mentioned that Wiki is not the place for F16 Buffs to write article  This is complete opposite what the founders of wiki wanted when this project wikipedia as a whole dreamed many many years ago  Wiki w

