I was actually cleaning up the text, but it wasn't finished. I do have a community draft of it though: Draft:Saudia Flight 163. The lawsuit part was rescued from older versions. I apologize for things going wrong. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 15:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your edit. Yes, indeed I have to wait before reaching consensus in the talkpage, the problem is that the other part does not participate in the talkpage, the user just keeps reverting edits without agreement. I have asked for semi-protection of the article, as one editor is accusing me of socketpuppetry without any proof and I'm actually changing something that is totally wrong in the article, for which I show several sources that prove it. I will wait for that user some time more, but not for eternity. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.191.228 ( talk) 19:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I just want to give people a background rather than just jump right in. I should have looked at the complexity of the investigation first. I did however do some edits that did meet the style guide. 1. The "victims" section of Adam Air Flight 174 was at the very bottom, so I moved it to right after the "flight chronology" section, before the "search and recovery section. 2. Also, Emery Worldwide Flight 17 had no "aftermath" section, so I added one. However, there was some rearrangement involved due to the creation of said "aftermath" section.
Once again, I apologize for messing up. And if what I listed above looks messed up, then I apologize in advance about them as well. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 18:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I’m sorry you’re appearing to have ago at me for adding dates on when the photo was taken? When there are plenty of other accidents that are just like that. So if you think it is wrong to have the dates on the caption why don’t you remove it from the I don’t know maybe 40+ accidents that have the same layout. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 12:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Having the dates on when the photo was taken I see is important especially for everyday view sets that see these kind of accidents, especially when viewers are interested in when it was taken, where it was taken, I feel like the info should be right there in the caption. Removing the exact date means it could’ve been taken from the 1st of that month or the 30th. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 12:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I already know, its the fact I didnt use the template on permission to use said image. I have permission but it wasn't done correctly. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 21:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I mean to you the date is unimportant but what about if people are making videos about the accident or something along the lines, wouldn’t providing a date of the photo of the aircraft be important? I don’t understand why you think it’s unnecessary to not include the date, not to be rude bu I don’t think your thinking outside the box, using the ‘what if’ query my IT teacher taught. I don’t mean to be a paint with my messages but there’s more then you and myself using this. I just feel like all the information is there for everyone to see you know. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Only the date of when it was taken so you know when exactly the plane was seen / spotted. Why why would you not have the date? For all you know people would assume and say oh the plane must of been repaired, why would you be reliable about sourcing but not with photographs? 194.207.74.71 ( talk) 18:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh I’m so sorry about that. What you’d like me to edit war with them about that? I added that Column to a lot and I mean a lot of accidents, only to get crap saying oh you’re making bad edits etc. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 12:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I wasnt removing it because I thought it was wrong, I was for it to be added to accidents. Now that I be assured I can redo the edits in which I removed them. Now i can finally add them back! And no I do not want to edit war. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 18:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Then why don't you add wreckage of Atlas Air 3591 on the main infobox then? There are photos of it's wreckage on commons? OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 21:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
[[pilot error]]
and not [[Pilot error]]
— It's a waste of other editors' time having to clean up all this untidiness. --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
01:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Okay, note taken thanks. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 09:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean capitalised at the start of the summary or throughout? Sam has a go at me for my capitalisation of each cause. I’m confused now... OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 16:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Now I’m about to right a paragraph here so I’d rather warn you about this.
You all dislike the way I edit on Wikipedia, when it comes to the way I’ve done summaries, dates and rewording stuff. Look I do not ignore you, I see some now I say some of the advice you give me is were I disagree, I always stood by reliability, I always have, yes I keep summaries short and I tend to try and make them in order whenever possible, but I’d like to open a discussion about my recommendations as I feel like A) the wording of some stuff does not sound right when you say it out loud. B) the way captions are done on images, I think they should be done as: registration, aircraft involved / similar and then month and year. C) summaries should not be very vague saying Crahsed on landing for example. It doesn’t state why it happened or what caused it. As with just about every accident you have a reason on what caused said accident. I love being here don’t get me wrong, but I was a huge user before I joined as my courses at college relied on your references and info. And countless times there are things that are worded correctly, I find this frustrating as yes it should be in clear English, but there are the same pages made in a different language. Look my autism is not making a mess, as I am very observant when something is out of order, why don’t I voice my opinion on the talk page? Because all I get is it’s always be like that and I would like to hold some kind of big discussion, it might seem impossible but I can’t keep my mind off some the things that sound incorrect. Please understand I am not here to be a pain or make you all think I’m taking the crap. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 15:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Rly? Well thanks then. I was explaining why I was doing what I was doing. Well I'll copy this and send it to sam then 194.207.74.71 ( talk) 18:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Deeday-UK: Hello, I would like your help on the talk page of Aeroméxico Conmect 2431, there is a contributior trying to turn the summary into a sentence and I’ve told him the summary should not include all the causes. Could you help by any chance? OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 22:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Now if you are gonna ignore me again, remember this is on your talk page so no excusses.
I read the stuff on there, and you expect me to make that change if all you are doing is touching my talk page, annoying m by doing that when I have a possible IP breach on my mobile phone, and the fact that you dont see me touching your talk page. So please just stop. Seriously, telling me to grow some balls is pathetic, we all have good days and bad days, and today hasnt been good for me, so please with all due respect leave my talk page as is. We each have our own talk page to do whatever we want with (as long as its not rule breaking). Okay? Thank you. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 22:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I won’t be kicked trust me. I didn’t click on the theropy link because for starters I know the definition of theropy. And I ain’t using this as theropy. Secondly everyone makes small mistakes and if you need me to critisie you I’ll do that. Serisouly you ain’t helping me. The fact thag now you reply to a comment of mine when you blatantly couldn’t be bothered to read my last message I sent you makes me not even want to bother to write this whole response up. I can’t be bothered to write this anymore. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 00:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
What you said is true, however the reason I added American Airlines Flight 587 is because the article on the rudder travel limiter brought up both of these accidents. Plus a structural failure and a high altitude stall both can lead to loss of control, though it is possible to regain control. I also saw in the revision history that Flight 8501 used to be in the "see also" section of American Airlines Flight 587, but you removed it for the same reason. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 19:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
First of all, the unused parameters were not added by me, they were always there. Second, the call sign is in the article on the airline. Third, reports never explicitly say "The [investigation agency] determines that the probable cause of this accident was pilot error for [reasons]." Here's several excerpts from the report confirming pilot error: 1. "The late initiation and subsequent management of the descent resulted in the aircraft turning onto final approach 600 feet above the glideslope, increasing the crew's workload and reducing their capacity to assess and resolve the navigational issues during the remainder of the approach." The crew initiated the descent late and improperly carried out the descent, aggravating the situation further.
8. "The crew's attention was devoted to solving the navigational problem, which delayed the configuration of the aircraft for landing. This problem solving was an additional task, not normally associated with this critical phase of flight, which escalated the workload." The crew should have been focusing on the aircraft's configuration.
9. "The first officer indicated to the captain that they had full localizer deflection. In the absence of standard phraseology applicable to his current situation, he had to improvise the go-around suggestion. Although full deflection is an undesired aircraft state requiring a go-around, the captain continued the approach." The captain did not initiate go around when they should have.
10. "The crew did not maintain a shared situational awareness. As the approach continued, the pilots did not effectively communicate their respective perception, understanding, and future projection of the aircraft state." Poor crew coordination, as explained in the articles introduction.
17. "The crew's crew resource management was ineffective. First Air's initial and recurrent crew resource management training did not provide the crew with sufficient practical strategies to assist with decision making and problem solving, communication, and workload management. The crew did not use CRM.
Thus, pilot error was a cause of this accident, so the summary should say "Controlled flight into terrain due to navigation error and pilot error [or the other way around]" I know I need to think more carefully, but at the same time you should think more carefully. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 19:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
stopover= stopover0= last_stopover= missing=
were not there before and were introduced by your edit. You may have done it inadvertently (another user reported similar spurious additions to the infobox while editing from their mobile phone), but it is still your responsibility not to leave all that garbage behind.If the source says | You could write e.g. |
---|---|
"the flight crew's failure to do such and such" | "the flight crew failed to do such and such" |
"the flight crew did not do such and such appropriately" | "the flight crew failed to do such and such appropriately" |
I undid your revert of my edit to "See Also" in American Airlines Flight 331 simply because your notes made no sense. That, precisely, is why is is proper procedure to discuss before reverting. If you had the grace to discuss first, I might have understood what you were trying to say. However, as hard as I tried to understand what you were trying to say, the language failed. Therefore I'm requesting that you do the proper thing and discuss whatever it was that was bothering you about my edit. Then perhaps we can agree on how to say something useful. After all, the section was only a "See Also" section of related structural failures, it was not an analysis of flight procedures or approaches/landings. It was simply a "See Also" on how the fuselage broke apart upon impact. I look forward to hearing from you either on the AA Flight 331 Talk Page, or my own Talk Page, as you like. But do let me know. Cheers! Santamoly ( talk) 08:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it's the other way round: you have to prove the three accidents are linked, and related to the manufacturing issues, not me, otherwise the links in the See also section will go. Of the sources you just referenced:
Uh I would like to apologize about yesterday (if there if anything worth apologizing). Tigerdude9 ( talk) 16:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Variable-buoyancy propulsion. Since you had some involvement with the Variable-buoyancy propulsion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Pam D 17:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I know that the aircraft passengers and crew are supposed to come after the accident, but for US accidents I've usually seen them come first. Is having them com first in US accidents and exception. I brought this up because of your revert to UPS Airlines Flight 1354. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 17:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
That stuff generates itself. Even when I click on the trash can icon and delete it, it re-appears. Also I removed the spacing because it looked redundant. I know it didn't have anything to do visually but yeah. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 21:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Nice to meet you ~ just want to let you know I restored the version before your edit~ You linked everything back to a dead link ~ also you took quote marks off a quoted statement ~ if you want to talk about this ~ please use my talk page or the articles talk page and I'll be glad to work with you on getting an edit we both agree on ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 12:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Deeday ~ sorry it is probable later in the evening for you ~ no rush on you thoughts of this ~ but when I left a message on @ Tigerdude9:'s talk page I was thinking of this WP:MOS/Topic ~ of course, if I would have seen (WP:AVILAYOUT-ACC) instead of skipping through your response to him ~ I would not have made the edit on tiger's page ~ I was not trying to go around your advise ~ have a good evening ~mitch~ ( talk) 21:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Was I too honest with what I said back there? If I was then, I apologize. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 17:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Buoyancy engine.
User:Doomsdayer520 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
Thank you for your new article on the Buoyancy engine.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Azza Transport Flight 2241 @ Deeday-UK: Hi friend, I found another error, if you look at ASN here: https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20091021-0 it mentions sudan airlines. 211.197.11.16 ( talk) 22:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi friend, no I don't have account on wikipedia. I come to english wikipedia as it better then korean version. I come from here https://cdo.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A2i-h%C3%A0ng_M%C3%ACng-gu%C3%B3k, I english speaking south korean. 211.197.11.16 ( talk) 10:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Deeday-UK Can we sort this airline article out please? The title is wrong. 211.197.11.16 ( talk) 10:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I was the person who uploaded the image of the CVR. Also, the crash occurred on my 18th birthday. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 14:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
curprev 09:08, 28 May 2019 Deeday-UK talk contribs 57,583 bytes -148 irrelevant picture of a pier removed and remaining ones rearranged more sensibly undothank
Hi. I don't consider the photo irrelevant. I have been to "the crater" and there is virtually no info in Chixulub as to where the crater is (or any information at all on it's whereabouts) in relation to the town. Basically nobody there has any idea what one is talking about. So the photo gives visitors a simple reference point and the caption explained where in relation to the wharf the crater center was. I think I might put it back. What do you think?
Thanks LawrieM ( talk) 22:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
OK we will have to agree to disagree on that one then. Having been there I know there is nothing anywhere that even mentions the crater and I wish there had been some quick indication ( a photo?) of where the crater actually was. We need to note that the crater is huge and where the exact center is is open to debate. Also Chicxulub town is not where the crater center is. Chicxulub Puerto ( where the wharf is and closest to the center) is a long way from Chicxulub - so this adds to the general confusion as well. I will put a note on the crater talk page first then maybe put it back. Ta LawrieM ( talk) 22:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
We had this discussion some years back, and that word has gone back and forth a number of times. The cited reference states: De ramp heeft 43 mensen gedood, waaronder de drie bemanningsleden. Vele anderen raken gewond. Er kunnen ook slachtoffers vallen onder illegale appartementbewoners, maar hoeveel er zijn is nooit gevonden. The direct translation of illegale appartementbewoners
is illegal apartment dwellers. Explicitly "illegal", although it doesn't say immigrants. I don't see anything in the reference which says "undocumented immigrants", but I'm not a fluent dutch reader, so it's possible you could find that.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
Changing the links at First Air Flight 6560 has nothing to do with WP:NOTBROKEN. It has everything to do with serving the general reader and the more experienced reader. It does not help the general reader to be sent to a section on the Boeing 737 page about a specific variant. So the first link in the box and the prose should go to the the main page. Any subsequent link can go to the section. Another option is that the box could be written as [[Boeing 737]] ([[Boeing 737-210C|201C]]). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
[[Boeing 737]]
in the body. I really don't see a reason to deviate from
WP:NOTBROKEN and
WP:NOPIPE. --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
19:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 02:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
You reversed my edit sourcing the demolition of, and subsequent removal of the debris of the aircraft from BOH. You unilaterally decided my source was unreliable. The source was myself. I was the photographer who documented this over several days, and am in possession of the evidence. Can you either please justify the removal, or reinstate what I wrote?
Guaglione Malavita - as photographer DarkerEye.com Guaglione Malavita ( talk) 23:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why you reversed my edition. I look forward to a rectification from you. Jmarchn ( talk) 08:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
[[Instrument flight rules|IFR]]
back to [[IFR]],
since they contravene
MOS:NOPIPE. --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
09:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Your recent editing history at Controlled flight into terrain shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DonIago ( talk) 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Deeday, I already asked you what is the actual problem and why you don't wanna let me post that picture, but you did not answer me. I let you do your job, I don't cancel what you do, I don't have this right if you don't post mistakes.
Charlie Foxtrot66 (
talk)
08:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You mean that you refuse to answer and talk with me? I am afraid it is not gonna be so easy, you wanted start an issue and now the issue is going on. If it is not a matter of live and death, so why don't you just let me post the picture? Why is it so important for you to stop me from doing it? Who do you think you are to stop the other people from contributing? Could you at least answer this question? Wich authority do you hav to behave in this way?
Charlie Foxtrot66 (
talk)
17:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, DonIago, you are right. I don't have experience in this kind of Wikipedia matters, I thought it was a good idea to talk with him but I can see that is gonna be useless, so from now on I will talk only in the artycle's talk page Charlie Foxtrot66 ( talk) 19:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
really? Are you serious. عمر الشامي ( talk) 10:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Deeday-UK, Just to inform you that a thread has been opened on the Dispute resolution noticeboard page, regarding the non-notable material that a "contributor" is attempting to insert on the Wow! signal page. I was not informed that this was happening - per Wikipedia conventions and in any case feel that this was totally unnecessary as the discussion was continuing, albeit with a warning that the person should never delete other editors comments on the Talk page. Regards, David J Johnson ( talk) 12:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I want to apologize for my behaviour. I'm going through really rough times in life. Feel free to delete this; I just wanted to let you know my apology. Kind regards.
ExoEditor
15:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC) has given you a
dove! Doves promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{ subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Howitzer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
My compliments for your efforts in applying {{ vad}} to all {{ Aviation accidents and incidents}} templates! I hadn't noticed until just now, but I really appreciate it. Take care! Jay D. Easy ( t • c) 23:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted your undiscussed move. Please feel free to file a request at WP:RM if you feel strongly that the article should be moved. Mjroots ( talk) 17:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Deeday-UK! I would like you to revert the edit you made here: [2]. Reason being is that it is not a mismash as airdisaster.ru has it with the slash: [3]. Thank you. KlientNo.1 ( talk) 15:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The WikiEagle |
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter |
Volume I — Issue 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Announcements
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Members
New Members
Number of active members: 386.
Total number of members: 921.
Closed Discussions
|
Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New/Ongoing Discussions
On The Main Page Did you know...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at
The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the
mailing list. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out my negligence in my edit on Mildred Joanne Smith. I have reworded the information and put it in a new section. Eddie Blick ( talk) 01:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Deeday-uk. Wanted to mention that you have reverted my move at Régional Compagnie Aérienne Européenne. My mention was that a native English user would not use a diacritical mark and would instead use Regional Airlines which would redirect to an incorrect page. Although WP:COMMONNAME could apply, we need to also be WP:PRECISE as well to distinguish this from Regional Airlines (France) (which is also sometimes known as Régional Airlines) Thanks. Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq ( talk) 09:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Could you please add a source/footnote for the background section you've added in the article?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 17:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I was going to add a disambiguation hatnote to the article Bloody Sunday (1972), one of those "for other uses of Bloody Sunday, see Bloody Sunday" ones, in case people find that page whilst they're looking for another Bloody Sunday. I noticed that you removed a similar hatnote under WP:NAMB, which is reasonable as the article has the year in it's name, but I thought a disambig hatnote might be useful for to someone if they found this article whilst searching generically for "Bloody Sunday" in a search engine. Would you mind if I added a disambiguation hatnote? If you would that's perfectly fine by me, I thought it was best to ask. Have a good day! – DirkJandeGeer щи 17:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Deeday-UK. I have recently partially reverted one of your recent edits to the article Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament. Due to your edit being in referenced or in contradiction to the references. Please see edit history for more info. Please join the discussion if you believe the edit should not have been reverted and take the discussion to the article Talk page. To avoid an edit war, please do not make the same changes to the article again until consensus has been reached in the talk page. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia Jo Jc Jo Talk💬 Edits📝 02:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:National Secular Society logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your words in my defence at WT:REDIR. I'm really at a loss to understand the objections to my recent edits, but since the editors who are doing the objecting are so much more experienced than I am, I feel obliged to take them seriously. Do you think I should?
The obvious question though is this: which 5% of my edits would you not have made? There are a few that I might reconsider, and one or two innocent slips that I would have corrected if the edits hadn't been reverted, but I'd be very interested to hear a second opinion. Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 23:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Jarrow is, and has always been, in County Durham. My original error which the IP editor corrected in the Bywell Castle article. It's been re-corrected, so no harm done. Mjroots ( talk) 06:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'll admit that's one thing I still don't understand, but I did read it after you reverted my edit. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your edit at " The Day the Music Died", " Roger Peterson (pilot)" was changed from a page about Peterson to a redirect yesterday, after I made my edit and before you made yours. I wasn't sure whether or not to revert that change, and I've been distracted by other things. Any thoughts? Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 15:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about your recent edit that changed the infobox summary of the incident, in which you cited the reason for the change in your edit summary as "Rewrite summary per project consensus: summarize events and circumstances, leave the causes for the article body". Having closely followed WP:AATF for several years, I was unaware of such a project consensus. Can you point me to that discussion, so I can familiarize myself with it? While I don't strenuously object to the change you made, I don't think it's actually an improvement, but I'd like to look at past discussions on the topic before doing anything else. Thanks, RecycledPixels ( talk) 06:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
explicitly discourage editors from adding causes to infobox summarieswhich, as far as I can tell, was unacknowledged by the other participants. The fact that it was in such an obscure location (how many people have that template on their watchlists?) makes me think that a more centralized discussion would be better if that's a direction you think things should go. I'm pretty hesitant to engage in such a debate over inbox summaries as I've seen some strongly held opinions on the topic in the past, and I just don't care enough, but I notice that you're also getting pushback from Btphelps on the same issue on the Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 page. It would probably be a good idea to get a wider view on your stance before continuing to make those edits. Thanks, RecycledPixels ( talk) 19:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I've started removing your summary changes because they lack an actual consensus based on the opinion on multiple editors. I know the discussion is still ongoing but until it is completed then these will stay as before. Cutlass Ciera 23:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I was actually cleaning up the text, but it wasn't finished. I do have a community draft of it though: Draft:Saudia Flight 163. The lawsuit part was rescued from older versions. I apologize for things going wrong. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 15:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your edit. Yes, indeed I have to wait before reaching consensus in the talkpage, the problem is that the other part does not participate in the talkpage, the user just keeps reverting edits without agreement. I have asked for semi-protection of the article, as one editor is accusing me of socketpuppetry without any proof and I'm actually changing something that is totally wrong in the article, for which I show several sources that prove it. I will wait for that user some time more, but not for eternity. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.191.228 ( talk) 19:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I just want to give people a background rather than just jump right in. I should have looked at the complexity of the investigation first. I did however do some edits that did meet the style guide. 1. The "victims" section of Adam Air Flight 174 was at the very bottom, so I moved it to right after the "flight chronology" section, before the "search and recovery section. 2. Also, Emery Worldwide Flight 17 had no "aftermath" section, so I added one. However, there was some rearrangement involved due to the creation of said "aftermath" section.
Once again, I apologize for messing up. And if what I listed above looks messed up, then I apologize in advance about them as well. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 18:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I’m sorry you’re appearing to have ago at me for adding dates on when the photo was taken? When there are plenty of other accidents that are just like that. So if you think it is wrong to have the dates on the caption why don’t you remove it from the I don’t know maybe 40+ accidents that have the same layout. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 12:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Having the dates on when the photo was taken I see is important especially for everyday view sets that see these kind of accidents, especially when viewers are interested in when it was taken, where it was taken, I feel like the info should be right there in the caption. Removing the exact date means it could’ve been taken from the 1st of that month or the 30th. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 12:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I already know, its the fact I didnt use the template on permission to use said image. I have permission but it wasn't done correctly. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 21:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I mean to you the date is unimportant but what about if people are making videos about the accident or something along the lines, wouldn’t providing a date of the photo of the aircraft be important? I don’t understand why you think it’s unnecessary to not include the date, not to be rude bu I don’t think your thinking outside the box, using the ‘what if’ query my IT teacher taught. I don’t mean to be a paint with my messages but there’s more then you and myself using this. I just feel like all the information is there for everyone to see you know. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Only the date of when it was taken so you know when exactly the plane was seen / spotted. Why why would you not have the date? For all you know people would assume and say oh the plane must of been repaired, why would you be reliable about sourcing but not with photographs? 194.207.74.71 ( talk) 18:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh I’m so sorry about that. What you’d like me to edit war with them about that? I added that Column to a lot and I mean a lot of accidents, only to get crap saying oh you’re making bad edits etc. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 12:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I wasnt removing it because I thought it was wrong, I was for it to be added to accidents. Now that I be assured I can redo the edits in which I removed them. Now i can finally add them back! And no I do not want to edit war. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 18:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Then why don't you add wreckage of Atlas Air 3591 on the main infobox then? There are photos of it's wreckage on commons? OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 21:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
[[pilot error]]
and not [[Pilot error]]
— It's a waste of other editors' time having to clean up all this untidiness. --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
01:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Okay, note taken thanks. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 09:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean capitalised at the start of the summary or throughout? Sam has a go at me for my capitalisation of each cause. I’m confused now... OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 16:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Now I’m about to right a paragraph here so I’d rather warn you about this.
You all dislike the way I edit on Wikipedia, when it comes to the way I’ve done summaries, dates and rewording stuff. Look I do not ignore you, I see some now I say some of the advice you give me is were I disagree, I always stood by reliability, I always have, yes I keep summaries short and I tend to try and make them in order whenever possible, but I’d like to open a discussion about my recommendations as I feel like A) the wording of some stuff does not sound right when you say it out loud. B) the way captions are done on images, I think they should be done as: registration, aircraft involved / similar and then month and year. C) summaries should not be very vague saying Crahsed on landing for example. It doesn’t state why it happened or what caused it. As with just about every accident you have a reason on what caused said accident. I love being here don’t get me wrong, but I was a huge user before I joined as my courses at college relied on your references and info. And countless times there are things that are worded correctly, I find this frustrating as yes it should be in clear English, but there are the same pages made in a different language. Look my autism is not making a mess, as I am very observant when something is out of order, why don’t I voice my opinion on the talk page? Because all I get is it’s always be like that and I would like to hold some kind of big discussion, it might seem impossible but I can’t keep my mind off some the things that sound incorrect. Please understand I am not here to be a pain or make you all think I’m taking the crap. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 15:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Rly? Well thanks then. I was explaining why I was doing what I was doing. Well I'll copy this and send it to sam then 194.207.74.71 ( talk) 18:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Deeday-UK: Hello, I would like your help on the talk page of Aeroméxico Conmect 2431, there is a contributior trying to turn the summary into a sentence and I’ve told him the summary should not include all the causes. Could you help by any chance? OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 22:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Now if you are gonna ignore me again, remember this is on your talk page so no excusses.
I read the stuff on there, and you expect me to make that change if all you are doing is touching my talk page, annoying m by doing that when I have a possible IP breach on my mobile phone, and the fact that you dont see me touching your talk page. So please just stop. Seriously, telling me to grow some balls is pathetic, we all have good days and bad days, and today hasnt been good for me, so please with all due respect leave my talk page as is. We each have our own talk page to do whatever we want with (as long as its not rule breaking). Okay? Thank you. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 22:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I won’t be kicked trust me. I didn’t click on the theropy link because for starters I know the definition of theropy. And I ain’t using this as theropy. Secondly everyone makes small mistakes and if you need me to critisie you I’ll do that. Serisouly you ain’t helping me. The fact thag now you reply to a comment of mine when you blatantly couldn’t be bothered to read my last message I sent you makes me not even want to bother to write this whole response up. I can’t be bothered to write this anymore. OrbitalEnd48401 ( talk) 00:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
What you said is true, however the reason I added American Airlines Flight 587 is because the article on the rudder travel limiter brought up both of these accidents. Plus a structural failure and a high altitude stall both can lead to loss of control, though it is possible to regain control. I also saw in the revision history that Flight 8501 used to be in the "see also" section of American Airlines Flight 587, but you removed it for the same reason. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 19:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
First of all, the unused parameters were not added by me, they were always there. Second, the call sign is in the article on the airline. Third, reports never explicitly say "The [investigation agency] determines that the probable cause of this accident was pilot error for [reasons]." Here's several excerpts from the report confirming pilot error: 1. "The late initiation and subsequent management of the descent resulted in the aircraft turning onto final approach 600 feet above the glideslope, increasing the crew's workload and reducing their capacity to assess and resolve the navigational issues during the remainder of the approach." The crew initiated the descent late and improperly carried out the descent, aggravating the situation further.
8. "The crew's attention was devoted to solving the navigational problem, which delayed the configuration of the aircraft for landing. This problem solving was an additional task, not normally associated with this critical phase of flight, which escalated the workload." The crew should have been focusing on the aircraft's configuration.
9. "The first officer indicated to the captain that they had full localizer deflection. In the absence of standard phraseology applicable to his current situation, he had to improvise the go-around suggestion. Although full deflection is an undesired aircraft state requiring a go-around, the captain continued the approach." The captain did not initiate go around when they should have.
10. "The crew did not maintain a shared situational awareness. As the approach continued, the pilots did not effectively communicate their respective perception, understanding, and future projection of the aircraft state." Poor crew coordination, as explained in the articles introduction.
17. "The crew's crew resource management was ineffective. First Air's initial and recurrent crew resource management training did not provide the crew with sufficient practical strategies to assist with decision making and problem solving, communication, and workload management. The crew did not use CRM.
Thus, pilot error was a cause of this accident, so the summary should say "Controlled flight into terrain due to navigation error and pilot error [or the other way around]" I know I need to think more carefully, but at the same time you should think more carefully. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 19:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
stopover= stopover0= last_stopover= missing=
were not there before and were introduced by your edit. You may have done it inadvertently (another user reported similar spurious additions to the infobox while editing from their mobile phone), but it is still your responsibility not to leave all that garbage behind.If the source says | You could write e.g. |
---|---|
"the flight crew's failure to do such and such" | "the flight crew failed to do such and such" |
"the flight crew did not do such and such appropriately" | "the flight crew failed to do such and such appropriately" |
I undid your revert of my edit to "See Also" in American Airlines Flight 331 simply because your notes made no sense. That, precisely, is why is is proper procedure to discuss before reverting. If you had the grace to discuss first, I might have understood what you were trying to say. However, as hard as I tried to understand what you were trying to say, the language failed. Therefore I'm requesting that you do the proper thing and discuss whatever it was that was bothering you about my edit. Then perhaps we can agree on how to say something useful. After all, the section was only a "See Also" section of related structural failures, it was not an analysis of flight procedures or approaches/landings. It was simply a "See Also" on how the fuselage broke apart upon impact. I look forward to hearing from you either on the AA Flight 331 Talk Page, or my own Talk Page, as you like. But do let me know. Cheers! Santamoly ( talk) 08:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it's the other way round: you have to prove the three accidents are linked, and related to the manufacturing issues, not me, otherwise the links in the See also section will go. Of the sources you just referenced:
Uh I would like to apologize about yesterday (if there if anything worth apologizing). Tigerdude9 ( talk) 16:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Variable-buoyancy propulsion. Since you had some involvement with the Variable-buoyancy propulsion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Pam D 17:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I know that the aircraft passengers and crew are supposed to come after the accident, but for US accidents I've usually seen them come first. Is having them com first in US accidents and exception. I brought this up because of your revert to UPS Airlines Flight 1354. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 17:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
That stuff generates itself. Even when I click on the trash can icon and delete it, it re-appears. Also I removed the spacing because it looked redundant. I know it didn't have anything to do visually but yeah. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 21:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Nice to meet you ~ just want to let you know I restored the version before your edit~ You linked everything back to a dead link ~ also you took quote marks off a quoted statement ~ if you want to talk about this ~ please use my talk page or the articles talk page and I'll be glad to work with you on getting an edit we both agree on ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 12:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Deeday ~ sorry it is probable later in the evening for you ~ no rush on you thoughts of this ~ but when I left a message on @ Tigerdude9:'s talk page I was thinking of this WP:MOS/Topic ~ of course, if I would have seen (WP:AVILAYOUT-ACC) instead of skipping through your response to him ~ I would not have made the edit on tiger's page ~ I was not trying to go around your advise ~ have a good evening ~mitch~ ( talk) 21:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Was I too honest with what I said back there? If I was then, I apologize. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 17:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Buoyancy engine.
User:Doomsdayer520 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
Thank you for your new article on the Buoyancy engine.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Azza Transport Flight 2241 @ Deeday-UK: Hi friend, I found another error, if you look at ASN here: https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20091021-0 it mentions sudan airlines. 211.197.11.16 ( talk) 22:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi friend, no I don't have account on wikipedia. I come to english wikipedia as it better then korean version. I come from here https://cdo.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A2i-h%C3%A0ng_M%C3%ACng-gu%C3%B3k, I english speaking south korean. 211.197.11.16 ( talk) 10:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Deeday-UK Can we sort this airline article out please? The title is wrong. 211.197.11.16 ( talk) 10:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I was the person who uploaded the image of the CVR. Also, the crash occurred on my 18th birthday. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 14:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
curprev 09:08, 28 May 2019 Deeday-UK talk contribs 57,583 bytes -148 irrelevant picture of a pier removed and remaining ones rearranged more sensibly undothank
Hi. I don't consider the photo irrelevant. I have been to "the crater" and there is virtually no info in Chixulub as to where the crater is (or any information at all on it's whereabouts) in relation to the town. Basically nobody there has any idea what one is talking about. So the photo gives visitors a simple reference point and the caption explained where in relation to the wharf the crater center was. I think I might put it back. What do you think?
Thanks LawrieM ( talk) 22:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
OK we will have to agree to disagree on that one then. Having been there I know there is nothing anywhere that even mentions the crater and I wish there had been some quick indication ( a photo?) of where the crater actually was. We need to note that the crater is huge and where the exact center is is open to debate. Also Chicxulub town is not where the crater center is. Chicxulub Puerto ( where the wharf is and closest to the center) is a long way from Chicxulub - so this adds to the general confusion as well. I will put a note on the crater talk page first then maybe put it back. Ta LawrieM ( talk) 22:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
We had this discussion some years back, and that word has gone back and forth a number of times. The cited reference states: De ramp heeft 43 mensen gedood, waaronder de drie bemanningsleden. Vele anderen raken gewond. Er kunnen ook slachtoffers vallen onder illegale appartementbewoners, maar hoeveel er zijn is nooit gevonden. The direct translation of illegale appartementbewoners
is illegal apartment dwellers. Explicitly "illegal", although it doesn't say immigrants. I don't see anything in the reference which says "undocumented immigrants", but I'm not a fluent dutch reader, so it's possible you could find that.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
Changing the links at First Air Flight 6560 has nothing to do with WP:NOTBROKEN. It has everything to do with serving the general reader and the more experienced reader. It does not help the general reader to be sent to a section on the Boeing 737 page about a specific variant. So the first link in the box and the prose should go to the the main page. Any subsequent link can go to the section. Another option is that the box could be written as [[Boeing 737]] ([[Boeing 737-210C|201C]]). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
[[Boeing 737]]
in the body. I really don't see a reason to deviate from
WP:NOTBROKEN and
WP:NOPIPE. --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
19:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 02:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
You reversed my edit sourcing the demolition of, and subsequent removal of the debris of the aircraft from BOH. You unilaterally decided my source was unreliable. The source was myself. I was the photographer who documented this over several days, and am in possession of the evidence. Can you either please justify the removal, or reinstate what I wrote?
Guaglione Malavita - as photographer DarkerEye.com Guaglione Malavita ( talk) 23:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why you reversed my edition. I look forward to a rectification from you. Jmarchn ( talk) 08:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
[[Instrument flight rules|IFR]]
back to [[IFR]],
since they contravene
MOS:NOPIPE. --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
09:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Your recent editing history at Controlled flight into terrain shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DonIago ( talk) 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Deeday, I already asked you what is the actual problem and why you don't wanna let me post that picture, but you did not answer me. I let you do your job, I don't cancel what you do, I don't have this right if you don't post mistakes.
Charlie Foxtrot66 (
talk)
08:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You mean that you refuse to answer and talk with me? I am afraid it is not gonna be so easy, you wanted start an issue and now the issue is going on. If it is not a matter of live and death, so why don't you just let me post the picture? Why is it so important for you to stop me from doing it? Who do you think you are to stop the other people from contributing? Could you at least answer this question? Wich authority do you hav to behave in this way?
Charlie Foxtrot66 (
talk)
17:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, DonIago, you are right. I don't have experience in this kind of Wikipedia matters, I thought it was a good idea to talk with him but I can see that is gonna be useless, so from now on I will talk only in the artycle's talk page Charlie Foxtrot66 ( talk) 19:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
really? Are you serious. عمر الشامي ( talk) 10:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Deeday-UK, Just to inform you that a thread has been opened on the Dispute resolution noticeboard page, regarding the non-notable material that a "contributor" is attempting to insert on the Wow! signal page. I was not informed that this was happening - per Wikipedia conventions and in any case feel that this was totally unnecessary as the discussion was continuing, albeit with a warning that the person should never delete other editors comments on the Talk page. Regards, David J Johnson ( talk) 12:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I want to apologize for my behaviour. I'm going through really rough times in life. Feel free to delete this; I just wanted to let you know my apology. Kind regards.
ExoEditor
15:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC) has given you a
dove! Doves promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{ subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Howitzer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
My compliments for your efforts in applying {{ vad}} to all {{ Aviation accidents and incidents}} templates! I hadn't noticed until just now, but I really appreciate it. Take care! Jay D. Easy ( t • c) 23:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted your undiscussed move. Please feel free to file a request at WP:RM if you feel strongly that the article should be moved. Mjroots ( talk) 17:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Deeday-UK! I would like you to revert the edit you made here: [2]. Reason being is that it is not a mismash as airdisaster.ru has it with the slash: [3]. Thank you. KlientNo.1 ( talk) 15:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The WikiEagle |
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter |
Volume I — Issue 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Announcements
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Members
New Members
Number of active members: 386.
Total number of members: 921.
Closed Discussions
|
Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New/Ongoing Discussions
On The Main Page Did you know...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at
The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the
mailing list. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out my negligence in my edit on Mildred Joanne Smith. I have reworded the information and put it in a new section. Eddie Blick ( talk) 01:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Deeday-uk. Wanted to mention that you have reverted my move at Régional Compagnie Aérienne Européenne. My mention was that a native English user would not use a diacritical mark and would instead use Regional Airlines which would redirect to an incorrect page. Although WP:COMMONNAME could apply, we need to also be WP:PRECISE as well to distinguish this from Regional Airlines (France) (which is also sometimes known as Régional Airlines) Thanks. Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq ( talk) 09:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Could you please add a source/footnote for the background section you've added in the article?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 17:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I was going to add a disambiguation hatnote to the article Bloody Sunday (1972), one of those "for other uses of Bloody Sunday, see Bloody Sunday" ones, in case people find that page whilst they're looking for another Bloody Sunday. I noticed that you removed a similar hatnote under WP:NAMB, which is reasonable as the article has the year in it's name, but I thought a disambig hatnote might be useful for to someone if they found this article whilst searching generically for "Bloody Sunday" in a search engine. Would you mind if I added a disambiguation hatnote? If you would that's perfectly fine by me, I thought it was best to ask. Have a good day! – DirkJandeGeer щи 17:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Deeday-UK. I have recently partially reverted one of your recent edits to the article Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament. Due to your edit being in referenced or in contradiction to the references. Please see edit history for more info. Please join the discussion if you believe the edit should not have been reverted and take the discussion to the article Talk page. To avoid an edit war, please do not make the same changes to the article again until consensus has been reached in the talk page. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia Jo Jc Jo Talk💬 Edits📝 02:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:National Secular Society logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your words in my defence at WT:REDIR. I'm really at a loss to understand the objections to my recent edits, but since the editors who are doing the objecting are so much more experienced than I am, I feel obliged to take them seriously. Do you think I should?
The obvious question though is this: which 5% of my edits would you not have made? There are a few that I might reconsider, and one or two innocent slips that I would have corrected if the edits hadn't been reverted, but I'd be very interested to hear a second opinion. Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 23:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Jarrow is, and has always been, in County Durham. My original error which the IP editor corrected in the Bywell Castle article. It's been re-corrected, so no harm done. Mjroots ( talk) 06:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'll admit that's one thing I still don't understand, but I did read it after you reverted my edit. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your edit at " The Day the Music Died", " Roger Peterson (pilot)" was changed from a page about Peterson to a redirect yesterday, after I made my edit and before you made yours. I wasn't sure whether or not to revert that change, and I've been distracted by other things. Any thoughts? Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 15:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about your recent edit that changed the infobox summary of the incident, in which you cited the reason for the change in your edit summary as "Rewrite summary per project consensus: summarize events and circumstances, leave the causes for the article body". Having closely followed WP:AATF for several years, I was unaware of such a project consensus. Can you point me to that discussion, so I can familiarize myself with it? While I don't strenuously object to the change you made, I don't think it's actually an improvement, but I'd like to look at past discussions on the topic before doing anything else. Thanks, RecycledPixels ( talk) 06:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
explicitly discourage editors from adding causes to infobox summarieswhich, as far as I can tell, was unacknowledged by the other participants. The fact that it was in such an obscure location (how many people have that template on their watchlists?) makes me think that a more centralized discussion would be better if that's a direction you think things should go. I'm pretty hesitant to engage in such a debate over inbox summaries as I've seen some strongly held opinions on the topic in the past, and I just don't care enough, but I notice that you're also getting pushback from Btphelps on the same issue on the Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 page. It would probably be a good idea to get a wider view on your stance before continuing to make those edits. Thanks, RecycledPixels ( talk) 19:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I've started removing your summary changes because they lack an actual consensus based on the opinion on multiple editors. I know the discussion is still ongoing but until it is completed then these will stay as before. Cutlass Ciera 23:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)