Some idiot disputed the content of the FU3 wikipedia page back in March 2008. I read the text (which seems perfectly accurate to me), and then posted a response :(

Chris,Alas, it seems that the infamous 'Wiki Bulldogs' are once again causing strife. The person who raised the issue certainly seems to have a long history of 'working' for the Wiki, but I too question the value of those who create disputes when none existed before.I have added my two pennies' worth as below:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flight_Unlimited_IIIDisputes about neutrality normally apply when a company edits pages or adds content that makes claims on a non-impartial basis. Worse, we have seen entire sections edited out by commercially-linked interests, to attempt to 'set the record straight' when in reality they are hijacking the article for advertising purposes.There have been cases of Australian Parliamentarians editing their own pages to remove links to scandals etc. :( In any case, the Wiki works the way it does and we have to accept that people who have no idea what we are talking about can inject their own feelings, without actually citing the basis for their problem. All I can say is (as I did on the page linked above), if someone has an issue, you would think that they would have the maturity to detail their challenge, and not just appear to challenge the entire article. At the end of the day, the Wiki is full of personal opinions, and those that don't stand the test of time are edited out whilst those that do remain.I would ask again the the challenger actually DETAIL their grief, instead of inventing problems of their own.Quite frankly, for all we know, the challenger is being paid by another sim company to 'water down' the competition! He probably isn't, but this is a simple example of why challengers must be questioned at a higher level than those who take the time to supply information in the first place :(

I just read the sections by Chris and Jon. Then I perused the text on our beloved sim. Where is the message that disputes the accuracy of the FU III presentation? A complaint needs to address what is believed to be erroneous.

My point exactly :( Oh he's such a clever fellow, he's simply implying 'impartiality' against the entire concept of the Wiki article. There must be some skulduggery there somewhere, and our little <implicator> wants the brownie points for the most Wiki edits for the month...Soak in warm water, put the pattern side against your skin, rub and peel slowly. There ya go little feller, your own fake tattoo :(

I too just read articles.Seems like the only thing that would provoke someone is the mention of "microsoft flight sim 98"GO figure