Welcome to Wikipedia, Tim Zukas! I am Elektrik Shoos and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
elektrik SHOOS 02:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the
external links you added to the page
McCarran International Airport do not comply with our
guidelines for external links and have been removed.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for
advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the
article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
HkCaGu (
talk)
01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This page is your user talk page, where people can communicate with you. Generally, you shouldn't be creating drafts here. Drafts, instead, should be created in subpages of this page. This is referred to as a userspace draft. If you go to Help:Userspace draft, it will provide a handy link to help you create one.
If you want to experiment with Wikipedia's syntax, you can use either Wikipedia:Sandbox, or you can create a personal sandbox for yourself by clicking this link and editing.
Thank you for editing Wikipedia. elektrik SHOOS 01:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You have now three times removed material from this article without explanation that appears in the original sources. If you find something that you dispute, please discuss it first in the page's talk section. Centpacrr ( talk) 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You're an excellent copy editor. Don't be deterred by egotistical windbags. :) EarlofEdits ( talk) 16:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Long Island MacArthur Airport, please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Tofutwitch11
(TALK)
03:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. See
Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —
Chris!
c/
t
21:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The map is in the library; it has a name on it, and the name of a person who drew it. Aside from that, no description aside from "official-looking map drawn by BART or the contractors or somebody." Tim Zukas ( talk) 21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry about the altercations we had over the TM page but I hope we can move on. I see that you are watching the Latitude page. What do you think of my comments on the talk page? I am surprised that there has been only one observation to date. Peter Mercator ( talk) 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I was viewing your recent edits on the article "Aeroméxico Flight 498", and one edit in particular is of concern to me. Under the sub-heading “Investigation and Aftermath”, you edited the information regarding how the Piper Pilot entered into the controlled airspace in Los Angeles’ TCA, and your edit appears as though the Piper Pilot intentionally or recklessly entered into the TCA, which is not at all correct. I am sure you took the time to read the NTSB’s final report, and though the main conclusion of the accident was Pilot error on the part of the Piper Pilot, he was not at all intentionally or recklessly entering the airspace without prior authorization. He was an experienced pilot who was on his way to Big Bear, and tried to avoid entering the LA TCA. The issue was not whether he had permission to enter the airspace, it is in agreement that he definitely did not have permission to fly into or through LA TCA; the issue was why he was flying in an unauthorized area. The NTSB’s final report, concluded that the pilot was unfamiliar with the LA TCA, and was actually trying to avoid the LA TCA, and that he had incorrectly interpreted the sectional aeronautical map of the LA TCA, and accidently flew into an unauthorized zone, which he was actually trying to avoid. Next, his plane was not equipped with a transponder, which would have greatly aided Air traffic control, in locating him immediately before he hit the Aeroméxico DC-10’s vertical stabilizer. Lastly, because of the position of both the Piper and DC-10, immediately prior to the crash, the DC-10’s tail or stabilizers were visible to the pilot of the Piper in the upper left portion of the windshield of the plane at about 50 degrees, thus his view of the DC-10 was blinded or obstructed, entirely until split seconds before he hit the DC-10’s vertical stabilizer. Immediately prior to crashing into the DC-10’s vertical stabilizer, the Piper pilot’s view was minimal, and though the circumstances of the final crash were due to his own mistake, it was a case of an unfortunate mistake, not intentional, reckless or an issue of inexperience on the Piper pilot. He was an experienced Pilot, unfamiliar with LA’s airspace, who made an unfortunate and deadly mistake. Again, your edit appears as if the Piper Pilot was reckless, and thus, the leading reason of the crash. This could be corrected if the edit were to explain that the pilot was actually acting cautiously and trying to avoid LA’s TCA rather than simply stating the Piper climbed into LA’s TCA. Irshgrl500 ( talk · contribs) 22:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edit summary in Solar time is in error: "(You don't "measure" an hour angle (except when it's zero). You measure altitude and azimuth.)" Local hour angle can be measured, to a reasonable approximation, with some sun dials, or a telescope with an equatorial mount. Jc3s5h ( talk) 02:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the paragraph as a whole,
Solar time is a reckoning of the passage of time based on the Sun's position in the sky. The fundamental unit of solar time is the day. When the Sun is visible, an observer at any longitude may measure the Sun's position in the sky and calculate its hour angle, which is interpreted as local time for that observer. Currently the length of a mean solar day is about 86,400.002 SI seconds.
I see that it is quite a mess. The hour angle is not local time; one must add 12 hours to get local time. Also, 12 + local hour angle is local apparent time, but the next paragraph explains that there are two kinds of solar time, mean and apparent. So I would change it like this:
Solar time is a reckoning of the passage of time based on the Sun's position in the sky. The fundamental unit of solar time is the day
., which is divided into 24 hours. Noon is the time when the Sun<ref>or, in the case of mean solar time, the fictitious mean sun</ref> crosses the local meridian.When the Sun is visible, an observer at any longitude may measure the Sun's position in the sky and calculate its hour angle, which is interpreted as local time for that observer. Currently the length of a mean solar day is about 86,400.002 SI seconds.
Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
While you are most welcome to edit Rolls-Royce Merlin please recognise that as a Featured Article the editing standards have to be higher than usual: a great deal of work went into bringing it up to FA status and anything which is added should comply with the format used throughout the article. Thus, when adding references please use the acknowledged format, using a single reference book and including page numbers - simply adding "Jane's AWA 1938, 1941, 1945-46, 1949-50" is meaningless. The Jane's AWA 1945-46 is already listed in the bibliography under Bridgman, L
Secondly, I have the Jane's AWA 1945-46 - nowhere do I see a comment in the entry for the Rolls-Royce Merlin, or for any other British engine, saying specifically that the Merlin was an exception amongst British aero engines in that it was R-H tractor - while several other entries say L.H Tractor or Left Hand tractor under "Airscrew Drive (eg: Napier Sabre), not every entry specifies the direction of propeller rotation and, as a reference, does not back up your point that the Merlin (Kestral not described) was unusual. If you wish to make this point please provide a reference which specifically says so, rather than using a shot-gun approach. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆ MTalk 22:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tim:
You wrote:
Why is this effect inversely proportional to the distance of the object from the earth? Why would it not apply equally to a star that is overhead? The inverse proportionality suggests that the effect is somehow caused by parallax, but parallax is not now mentioned in the paragraph.
I made some edits to this paragraph recently with the prime objective of making it make sense. Previously, it was gibberish. Now, you've largely put it back to the way it was.
I wonder what original author wanted it to say.
Maybe the best solution would be just to remove this paragraph altogether. It doesn't really contribute anything significant to the article.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 21:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
If you send a line outward from the center of the earth at an angle of 30 degrees from the plane of the equator (so it hits the celestial sphere at declination 30 degrees) it will pass thru the spheroid that we use to approximate the earth's surface at latitude 30.17 deg-- i.e. the angle whose tangent is times the tangent of 30 deg. ('a' is the equatorial radius of the spheroid and 'b' is the "polar radius"-- the distance from the center to a pole.)
He might want to aim a satellite dish.
I wrote a computer progam once that calculated the direction of a geostationary satellite as seen from anywhere on the earth. It's just an exercise in three-dimensional trigonometry, but some of the results might surprise some people. For example, as seen from north-temperate latitudes, the declination of a satellite is lower if it is close to the observer's longitude than if it is close to the eastern or western horizon. The program calculated the dates and times when satellites pass in front of the sun, or close to it, since this causes reception problems. (Radio waves coming from the sun cause interference.) The dates depend on the observer's longitude, relative to the satellite, as well as his latitude.
No. I'm not going to write this up on the Declination page. There's probably some other page where it would be more appropriate, if it isn't there already.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 01:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I've created a template Template:Rail freight for the historical railroad freight statistics. The template makes it easier to add the statistics to pages, and it will also allow people to enhance the formatting by simply modifying the template.
One thing that should be added is a citation. Are you getting all the railroad statistics from the same source? We can add that to the template so that all the tables cite the same source. Otherwise, we might just add a citation parameter to the template. — Jim Irwin ( talk) 21:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
They're all from the ICC annual reports-- "Statistics of Rwys in the US" and the successor "Transport Statistics". Tim Zukas ( talk) 23:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like you have something you're trying to get across with your edits to Mount Umunhum that is not clear to me or to the other editors on the page. If you want, you can bring it up on the talk page. TJRC ( talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I request that this discussion be moved to Talk:Mount Umunhum. My initial comment was specific to one editor, but the balance of this discussion concerns a specific article, not a particular editor, and should take place there. TJRC ( talk) 21:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Tim,
Please believe me when I state that edit I did on the REIF page was in good-faith. And I am not one of those editors on Wiki that starts cyper-fights when an edit I do is retracted or deleted. I just move on to the next project. But I will admit not being an expert in this field, but I am just curious, if you do know or have a pretty good idea, what was that strobe lightening system that was installed at what became JFK in 1956. And REIL seem to be the only thing that matched the description. I am asking just out of my own curiosity. Best Jack -- Jackehammond ( talk) 04:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
.
Hey there, I see you did quite a few edits to Nashville International Airport today. First off, thanks for the contributions! Unfortunately none of the information appears to be sourced. Would you mind putting in some references? In the meantime, I'll be changing some of the items you put in as coordinates to links. If you could, please also cite those. Thanks! nf utvol ( talk) 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tim, just another note about some of your edits on the BNA page. Please do not remove sourced information for unsourced information that contradicts the existing sources, such as this edit. Also, when adding new information, please try to keep to the style of the page, such as conversions for distances, coordinates, etc.. If you're just experimenting, please use your sandbox. I'll go through and try to do some cleanup, but don't be surprised if I end up reverting some of your edits. Thanks! nf utvol ( talk) 19:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to
Newark Liberty International Airport does not have an
edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!
JetBlast (
talk)
22:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tim, I noticed on your recent edits to the F-104 Starfighter article, you added references to the FAI Web site, and listed off record numbers. In this sort of situation, it would be much more helpful to use the citation templates to link to each record, instead of just listing them. This article, like the article for Nashville International Airport, which you made similar edits to, have been attempting to get to GA status, and a lot of users are putting a lot of time and effort into these to get them polished enough to be put back up for consideration. This polishing includes keeping citations in good order. I and everyone else involved with these articles would really appreciate your help in this. Thanks!
Please see the following for info on citations and templates:
nf utvol ( talk) 00:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the article again. As I said in my edit summaries ( which you should use, too), articles are supposed to have an encyclopedic tone, per Wikipedia policy. Additionally, extended textbook-like walkthrough examples are also discouraged, again per Wikipedia policy. As such, the step-by-step example shouldn't be there, and the conversant part in the lede is redundant and unnecessary. -- Xanzzibar ( talk) 11:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to
Midway International Airport does not have an
edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!
Kairportflier (
talk)
15:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I don't want you to think I am being mean or anything of that sort. I am at my 3 edits as are you, it is officially an edit war at Chicago Midway International Airport. Could you visit the Talk:Chicago Midway International Airport and put your case for your edits in. I have gone to other users and requested they put in there input to close this dispute. Thanks! Kairportflier ( talk) 23:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to the pages
Port Columbus International Airport,
Newark Liberty International Airport and
Chicago Midway International Airport. Such edits constitute
vandalism and are
reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the
sandbox for testing.
Kairportflier (
talk)
01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
JetBlast ( talk) 22:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Expect to be blocked regarding your disruptive edits. You continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Newark Liberty International Airport, you will be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Kairportflier (
talk)
23:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an
edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly
reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. I know it's been in and out of the 24hr zone, but warning is needed. Chip123456 Talk Contribs 20:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! I have a quick question. Can I use the coordinates of a town as the coordinates of an institution in that town? For example, can I use the coordinates of Isfana as the coordinates of a high-school there? I enlarged this image and found the building. Is it possible to get the exact coordinates? Nataev ( talk) 08:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Google maps does giv lat-lons, but I have no idea how good they are in that area. Here in the US they seem to usually be correct within a few meters.
Aside from that, the question is: has anyone determined a lat-lon for anything else around there? If they have then you can measure from there.
Then there's always lat-lon by the stars, which won't be that exact, but if you can't find anything better... Tim Zukas ( talk) 23:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the change! L.cash.m ( talk) 22:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I opposed your addition to List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations because of 2 points:
1) It has to do with WP:Verifiability. If no one can easily verify that the info you added is true, then that info is probably not suitable for Wikipedia. You can't be like "Hey, just trust me." Now you said that an offline source exists. Offline sources are fine, but then you must provide a proper citation. Vague term like "a BART map from 1971" is not a proper citation. You need to provide extra info like who made it (name/organization), the date it was made, etc. And then it should be added to the article as an inline citation. If these info can't be provided, how can others trust that the info provided is correct? Also see WP:Citing sources.
2) Another point is WP:Notability. I argue that the milepost info is not notable to the general readers, except to maybe some railroad fans or some type of engineers. I think the fact that these info is only presented on 1 or 2 maps already proves my points.
Now, more than 1 editors have opposed your addition, meaning that the consensus is to not include it. Engaging in an WP:edit war in order to force your edit through is against Wikipedia rule. I urge you to stop adding that info unless you can adequately answer my points, or else you could be blocked if you persist in adding unverifiable information.— Chris! c/ t 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
(I was surprised to see the date for the opening of West Oakland stayed correct. A good thing, since aside from those dates it's hard to see what use the list is to anyone. Aside from the dates, can you find a notable fact anywhere in the article as it is now?) Tim Zukas ( talk) 21:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Tim Zukas, I invite you to the above talk page so you can explain your reasons as to why you think undoing all the changes I made on this article was necessary. I invite everybody on this section so that you can give us insight as to why your changes should be upheld. I do not believe you want to dialogue your changes but I'm willing to listen anytime within the next 7 days. You do not have to justify it all, but at the very least I would like to know why you think the first sentence deserves not to be changed at all. Please use: Talk:List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations for any feedback.
Thank you.
Swestlake ( talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You have absolutely no reason to "undo" other people's changes if you do not have the capability of defending/clarifying or elaborating your position. When people like me stand up, the hit-n-runners try to find the easy way out. This nonsense stops with me.
Your edits are now on my watchlist.
Swestlake (
talk)
09:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I undid your edits to Grade (slope) because you deleted material without giving any explanation either on the talk page or the edit summary. If you feel the article can be improved by removal of material, please provide some explanation. Thanks. — EncMstr ( talk) 17:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, vertical is defined as opposite the direction of gravity at any point. But as you follow the direction of gravity toward the center of the earth, it is not a STRAIGHT line. That's why the theoretical definition says "line of force". I'll try to get a specific citation for the definition, but right now either of us could get banned for messing with it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHart93 ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edit in " Solar time" did not provide an inline citation for a direct quotation. Please provide an inline citation. This is required by WP:CITE. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Will you please stop making wholesale edits to San Francisco International Airport without discussing them on the Talk page first. Your reason for your edits are really POV and I have no intention of starting a edit war. Nonetheless, you have deleted important information, which I hope will be reverted. Your whole editing history does seem to be destructive. Please remember you have been warned on your contributions before. Thank you, David J Johnson ( talk) 23:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
San Francisco International Airport. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You seem to also have been caught in an edit war at Newark Liberty International Airport in July, which nearly resulted in you being blocked for 3RR violations. You are at two for this 24-hour period. Thanks and please resolve on talk. WorldTraveller101( Trouble?/ My Work) 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Charles M. Schulz–Sonoma County Airport may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Tim. Please don't restore the rumours about the Union Pacific GTELs being uprated to 10,000hp to that article unless you can find a source for them. Wikipedia is for verifiable facts, not rumours. If there's a reliable source for the rumour then at least the existence of the rumour is a verifiable fact; without even that, it doesn't belong in the article. Dricherby ( talk) 00:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Pacific Air Lines may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Copy Editor's Barnstar | |
I award you this Copy Editor's Barnstar for insisting on clear, comprehensible, and grammatically correct articles. I do not usually give barnstars out, but you deserve this one following your recent work at Ministro Pistarini International Airport. Keep up the good work! Jetstreamer Talk 20:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Gerald R. Ford International Airport may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Sioux Gateway Airport may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 23:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim, I've noticed you reverted my edit at Boeing 727. I thought many readers might be unfamiliar with Mach as a unit of speed, and that it would be a good idea to convert the "max cruise speed" statement in mph and kn (as has been done in the next line about the typical cruise speed). Thus, the two items would also be made comparable. I just don't understand your claim that "727 doesn't cruise at 685 mph". I calculated it: Mach 0.9 is equivalent to 685 mph.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Toledo Express Airport shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfw79 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfw79 ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I have reviewed the report filed again you at WP:ANEW. Both you and the other editor are edit warring at Toledo Express Airport. However, the other editor is at least making an effort to discuss the dispute on the article talk page. I don't see you contributing to that discussion. So, consider this a warning that if you continue to revert on the article without discussion and consensus, you risk being blocked.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Toledo Express_Airport". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems we have a difference in opinion on some of the revisions you made to the article. Note that this article was peer reviewed and also passed a FAC and, thus, found be "well-written" and "comprehensive" (per WP:FACR). Along with the unnecessary wording of some sections, here are some specific gripes:
I don't edit war, but I also don't like roughshod revisions to an FA, and would like to see this resolved in a reasonable manner. Niagara Don't give up the ship 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Everyone agrees the curve is something like 9 degrees (part 9 deg, part 9 deg 15 min PRR used to say) which is why it's clearly not 3485 ft long, and clearly doesn't climb 66 ft. Looking at the online aerials the total angle is less than 220 deg. (210 deg might be close, tho.) Tim Zukas ( talk) 17:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The only "source" that tries to give the actual length of the curve is the one-inch-to-400-feet PRR track chart, which none of us has. We can measure it off the online aerials and probably get it within a hundred feet or so-- certainly that will show the 3485 ft is wrong, if that's still not plain to you. Tim Zukas ( talk) 19:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
A 9.4-degree curve is 620 ft radius; you can measure for yourself on the online aerials and see the inside track is close to that while the outside track is 650+ ft. The PRR chart showed about half the curve 9-deg and half 9.25 deg.
"to change [220 deg] would be original research"
Original reseach would be going to the curve with a transit and measuring the actual angle. Nothing original about measuring online aerials that anyone else can measure for himself. Tim Zukas ( talk) 23:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Some of the radii and degree conversions mentioned are not accurate to the nearest foot. By railroad (chord) definition, 9 degree curve is 637.3 ft radius. A delta angle 220 would make arc length 2447 and sum of station chords 2444 to the nearest foot. 9.25 degree (9 deg 15 min) is 620.1 radius. A delta angle 220 would make arc length 2381 ft and sum of station chords 2378 9.4 deg (9 deg 24 min) is 610.2 radius Those numbers change only slightly if you use the arc (highway) definition for degree of curve, to 636.620, 619.414, and 609.530 radii, and similar changes in length. If there are multiple radii in the curve, the length will be somewhere in between given values. BillHart93 ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:ELPOINTS number 2. External links do not belong in body text. They belong in the external links section unless they are used as references. That is why I keep removing the links you've added to airport articles. They just don't belong there according to the guidelines. oknazevad ( talk) 16:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Overland Limited. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
Tim, I have prepared a case page about your habit of editing logged out. You can see the page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas. To avoid getting blocked for violations of WP:MULTIPLE, you should make certain that you are logged in for all edits. Binksternet ( talk) 00:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Mackensen
(talk)
21:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Spike Wilbury (
talk)
11:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Per the solid consensus in the ongoing ANI thread, I have blocked you for an extended period appropriate to the escalating seriousness of your behavior and considering the fact that you continued even after one of your IP addresses was blocked for 3 months. There were a number of calls to make the block indefinite, but I think you should be allowed to reflect on and adjust your approach to editing, and possibly contribute constructively when you return. You have gotten significant feedback that your fellow editors expect you to discuss and explain your edits, stop performing mass unexplained edits/removals, respect consensus, and avoid editing anonymously or with alternate accounts to avoid scrutiny or attention. If you fail to do these things when you return, you will be blocked indefinitely without discussion or fanfare. I should also note that any IP or alternate accounts that appear to be you will be blocked on sight for violating WP:SOCK. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 11:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Western Airlines may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 02:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at
Alamogordo–White Sands Regional Airport.
Boomer Vial
Holla
06:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Tim, WTF are you up to? Slow down and explain yourself and maybe you won't have to be blocked as a vandal. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing →
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
SQL
Query me!
13:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Tim Zukas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Check any of my edits, looking for vandalism. (You won't find any, of course, and the accusation tells you all you need to know about the accuser.) If you've got time to spare, check any of my edits looking for one that isn't an improvement.
Decline reason:
"Vandalism" is debatable, but you should be well aware that your style of editing, even if you are right, is extremely unhelpful. As an obvious non-improvement I'd point to this edit (without looking too closely at many others). Besides, per WP:BRD, when someone reverts your changes, you engage them in a discussion, not just revert back. Huon ( talk) 22:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Any admin that disagrees with my block is welcome to undo it, or change it without consulting me. SQL Query me! 22:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Speaking as an editor, I disagree. He was given a six-month block in 2015 for this exact behavior, which he promptly resumed after the block expired. I don't see why he should be unblocked unless he's prepared to agree that his behavior is a problem and that he needs to meet other editors on this project halfway. Mackensen (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, I get it that there's a long history and good reason to block; but "because your account is being used only for vandalism" is not the reason. It's odd editing, but not vandalism. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Tim Zukas. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Binksternet (
talk)
05:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Tim Zukas. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Transv Mercator".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DannyS712 ( talk) 06:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Tim Zukas! I am Elektrik Shoos and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
elektrik SHOOS 02:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the
external links you added to the page
McCarran International Airport do not comply with our
guidelines for external links and have been removed.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for
advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the
article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
HkCaGu (
talk)
01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This page is your user talk page, where people can communicate with you. Generally, you shouldn't be creating drafts here. Drafts, instead, should be created in subpages of this page. This is referred to as a userspace draft. If you go to Help:Userspace draft, it will provide a handy link to help you create one.
If you want to experiment with Wikipedia's syntax, you can use either Wikipedia:Sandbox, or you can create a personal sandbox for yourself by clicking this link and editing.
Thank you for editing Wikipedia. elektrik SHOOS 01:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You have now three times removed material from this article without explanation that appears in the original sources. If you find something that you dispute, please discuss it first in the page's talk section. Centpacrr ( talk) 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You're an excellent copy editor. Don't be deterred by egotistical windbags. :) EarlofEdits ( talk) 16:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Long Island MacArthur Airport, please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Tofutwitch11
(TALK)
03:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. See
Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —
Chris!
c/
t
21:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The map is in the library; it has a name on it, and the name of a person who drew it. Aside from that, no description aside from "official-looking map drawn by BART or the contractors or somebody." Tim Zukas ( talk) 21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry about the altercations we had over the TM page but I hope we can move on. I see that you are watching the Latitude page. What do you think of my comments on the talk page? I am surprised that there has been only one observation to date. Peter Mercator ( talk) 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I was viewing your recent edits on the article "Aeroméxico Flight 498", and one edit in particular is of concern to me. Under the sub-heading “Investigation and Aftermath”, you edited the information regarding how the Piper Pilot entered into the controlled airspace in Los Angeles’ TCA, and your edit appears as though the Piper Pilot intentionally or recklessly entered into the TCA, which is not at all correct. I am sure you took the time to read the NTSB’s final report, and though the main conclusion of the accident was Pilot error on the part of the Piper Pilot, he was not at all intentionally or recklessly entering the airspace without prior authorization. He was an experienced pilot who was on his way to Big Bear, and tried to avoid entering the LA TCA. The issue was not whether he had permission to enter the airspace, it is in agreement that he definitely did not have permission to fly into or through LA TCA; the issue was why he was flying in an unauthorized area. The NTSB’s final report, concluded that the pilot was unfamiliar with the LA TCA, and was actually trying to avoid the LA TCA, and that he had incorrectly interpreted the sectional aeronautical map of the LA TCA, and accidently flew into an unauthorized zone, which he was actually trying to avoid. Next, his plane was not equipped with a transponder, which would have greatly aided Air traffic control, in locating him immediately before he hit the Aeroméxico DC-10’s vertical stabilizer. Lastly, because of the position of both the Piper and DC-10, immediately prior to the crash, the DC-10’s tail or stabilizers were visible to the pilot of the Piper in the upper left portion of the windshield of the plane at about 50 degrees, thus his view of the DC-10 was blinded or obstructed, entirely until split seconds before he hit the DC-10’s vertical stabilizer. Immediately prior to crashing into the DC-10’s vertical stabilizer, the Piper pilot’s view was minimal, and though the circumstances of the final crash were due to his own mistake, it was a case of an unfortunate mistake, not intentional, reckless or an issue of inexperience on the Piper pilot. He was an experienced Pilot, unfamiliar with LA’s airspace, who made an unfortunate and deadly mistake. Again, your edit appears as if the Piper Pilot was reckless, and thus, the leading reason of the crash. This could be corrected if the edit were to explain that the pilot was actually acting cautiously and trying to avoid LA’s TCA rather than simply stating the Piper climbed into LA’s TCA. Irshgrl500 ( talk · contribs) 22:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edit summary in Solar time is in error: "(You don't "measure" an hour angle (except when it's zero). You measure altitude and azimuth.)" Local hour angle can be measured, to a reasonable approximation, with some sun dials, or a telescope with an equatorial mount. Jc3s5h ( talk) 02:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the paragraph as a whole,
Solar time is a reckoning of the passage of time based on the Sun's position in the sky. The fundamental unit of solar time is the day. When the Sun is visible, an observer at any longitude may measure the Sun's position in the sky and calculate its hour angle, which is interpreted as local time for that observer. Currently the length of a mean solar day is about 86,400.002 SI seconds.
I see that it is quite a mess. The hour angle is not local time; one must add 12 hours to get local time. Also, 12 + local hour angle is local apparent time, but the next paragraph explains that there are two kinds of solar time, mean and apparent. So I would change it like this:
Solar time is a reckoning of the passage of time based on the Sun's position in the sky. The fundamental unit of solar time is the day
., which is divided into 24 hours. Noon is the time when the Sun<ref>or, in the case of mean solar time, the fictitious mean sun</ref> crosses the local meridian.When the Sun is visible, an observer at any longitude may measure the Sun's position in the sky and calculate its hour angle, which is interpreted as local time for that observer. Currently the length of a mean solar day is about 86,400.002 SI seconds.
Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
While you are most welcome to edit Rolls-Royce Merlin please recognise that as a Featured Article the editing standards have to be higher than usual: a great deal of work went into bringing it up to FA status and anything which is added should comply with the format used throughout the article. Thus, when adding references please use the acknowledged format, using a single reference book and including page numbers - simply adding "Jane's AWA 1938, 1941, 1945-46, 1949-50" is meaningless. The Jane's AWA 1945-46 is already listed in the bibliography under Bridgman, L
Secondly, I have the Jane's AWA 1945-46 - nowhere do I see a comment in the entry for the Rolls-Royce Merlin, or for any other British engine, saying specifically that the Merlin was an exception amongst British aero engines in that it was R-H tractor - while several other entries say L.H Tractor or Left Hand tractor under "Airscrew Drive (eg: Napier Sabre), not every entry specifies the direction of propeller rotation and, as a reference, does not back up your point that the Merlin (Kestral not described) was unusual. If you wish to make this point please provide a reference which specifically says so, rather than using a shot-gun approach. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆ MTalk 22:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tim:
You wrote:
Why is this effect inversely proportional to the distance of the object from the earth? Why would it not apply equally to a star that is overhead? The inverse proportionality suggests that the effect is somehow caused by parallax, but parallax is not now mentioned in the paragraph.
I made some edits to this paragraph recently with the prime objective of making it make sense. Previously, it was gibberish. Now, you've largely put it back to the way it was.
I wonder what original author wanted it to say.
Maybe the best solution would be just to remove this paragraph altogether. It doesn't really contribute anything significant to the article.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 21:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
If you send a line outward from the center of the earth at an angle of 30 degrees from the plane of the equator (so it hits the celestial sphere at declination 30 degrees) it will pass thru the spheroid that we use to approximate the earth's surface at latitude 30.17 deg-- i.e. the angle whose tangent is times the tangent of 30 deg. ('a' is the equatorial radius of the spheroid and 'b' is the "polar radius"-- the distance from the center to a pole.)
He might want to aim a satellite dish.
I wrote a computer progam once that calculated the direction of a geostationary satellite as seen from anywhere on the earth. It's just an exercise in three-dimensional trigonometry, but some of the results might surprise some people. For example, as seen from north-temperate latitudes, the declination of a satellite is lower if it is close to the observer's longitude than if it is close to the eastern or western horizon. The program calculated the dates and times when satellites pass in front of the sun, or close to it, since this causes reception problems. (Radio waves coming from the sun cause interference.) The dates depend on the observer's longitude, relative to the satellite, as well as his latitude.
No. I'm not going to write this up on the Declination page. There's probably some other page where it would be more appropriate, if it isn't there already.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 01:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I've created a template Template:Rail freight for the historical railroad freight statistics. The template makes it easier to add the statistics to pages, and it will also allow people to enhance the formatting by simply modifying the template.
One thing that should be added is a citation. Are you getting all the railroad statistics from the same source? We can add that to the template so that all the tables cite the same source. Otherwise, we might just add a citation parameter to the template. — Jim Irwin ( talk) 21:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
They're all from the ICC annual reports-- "Statistics of Rwys in the US" and the successor "Transport Statistics". Tim Zukas ( talk) 23:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like you have something you're trying to get across with your edits to Mount Umunhum that is not clear to me or to the other editors on the page. If you want, you can bring it up on the talk page. TJRC ( talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I request that this discussion be moved to Talk:Mount Umunhum. My initial comment was specific to one editor, but the balance of this discussion concerns a specific article, not a particular editor, and should take place there. TJRC ( talk) 21:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Tim,
Please believe me when I state that edit I did on the REIF page was in good-faith. And I am not one of those editors on Wiki that starts cyper-fights when an edit I do is retracted or deleted. I just move on to the next project. But I will admit not being an expert in this field, but I am just curious, if you do know or have a pretty good idea, what was that strobe lightening system that was installed at what became JFK in 1956. And REIL seem to be the only thing that matched the description. I am asking just out of my own curiosity. Best Jack -- Jackehammond ( talk) 04:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
.
Hey there, I see you did quite a few edits to Nashville International Airport today. First off, thanks for the contributions! Unfortunately none of the information appears to be sourced. Would you mind putting in some references? In the meantime, I'll be changing some of the items you put in as coordinates to links. If you could, please also cite those. Thanks! nf utvol ( talk) 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tim, just another note about some of your edits on the BNA page. Please do not remove sourced information for unsourced information that contradicts the existing sources, such as this edit. Also, when adding new information, please try to keep to the style of the page, such as conversions for distances, coordinates, etc.. If you're just experimenting, please use your sandbox. I'll go through and try to do some cleanup, but don't be surprised if I end up reverting some of your edits. Thanks! nf utvol ( talk) 19:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to
Newark Liberty International Airport does not have an
edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!
JetBlast (
talk)
22:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tim, I noticed on your recent edits to the F-104 Starfighter article, you added references to the FAI Web site, and listed off record numbers. In this sort of situation, it would be much more helpful to use the citation templates to link to each record, instead of just listing them. This article, like the article for Nashville International Airport, which you made similar edits to, have been attempting to get to GA status, and a lot of users are putting a lot of time and effort into these to get them polished enough to be put back up for consideration. This polishing includes keeping citations in good order. I and everyone else involved with these articles would really appreciate your help in this. Thanks!
Please see the following for info on citations and templates:
nf utvol ( talk) 00:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the article again. As I said in my edit summaries ( which you should use, too), articles are supposed to have an encyclopedic tone, per Wikipedia policy. Additionally, extended textbook-like walkthrough examples are also discouraged, again per Wikipedia policy. As such, the step-by-step example shouldn't be there, and the conversant part in the lede is redundant and unnecessary. -- Xanzzibar ( talk) 11:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to
Midway International Airport does not have an
edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!
Kairportflier (
talk)
15:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I don't want you to think I am being mean or anything of that sort. I am at my 3 edits as are you, it is officially an edit war at Chicago Midway International Airport. Could you visit the Talk:Chicago Midway International Airport and put your case for your edits in. I have gone to other users and requested they put in there input to close this dispute. Thanks! Kairportflier ( talk) 23:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to the pages
Port Columbus International Airport,
Newark Liberty International Airport and
Chicago Midway International Airport. Such edits constitute
vandalism and are
reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the
sandbox for testing.
Kairportflier (
talk)
01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
JetBlast ( talk) 22:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Expect to be blocked regarding your disruptive edits. You continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Newark Liberty International Airport, you will be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Kairportflier (
talk)
23:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an
edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly
reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. I know it's been in and out of the 24hr zone, but warning is needed. Chip123456 Talk Contribs 20:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! I have a quick question. Can I use the coordinates of a town as the coordinates of an institution in that town? For example, can I use the coordinates of Isfana as the coordinates of a high-school there? I enlarged this image and found the building. Is it possible to get the exact coordinates? Nataev ( talk) 08:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Google maps does giv lat-lons, but I have no idea how good they are in that area. Here in the US they seem to usually be correct within a few meters.
Aside from that, the question is: has anyone determined a lat-lon for anything else around there? If they have then you can measure from there.
Then there's always lat-lon by the stars, which won't be that exact, but if you can't find anything better... Tim Zukas ( talk) 23:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the change! L.cash.m ( talk) 22:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I opposed your addition to List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations because of 2 points:
1) It has to do with WP:Verifiability. If no one can easily verify that the info you added is true, then that info is probably not suitable for Wikipedia. You can't be like "Hey, just trust me." Now you said that an offline source exists. Offline sources are fine, but then you must provide a proper citation. Vague term like "a BART map from 1971" is not a proper citation. You need to provide extra info like who made it (name/organization), the date it was made, etc. And then it should be added to the article as an inline citation. If these info can't be provided, how can others trust that the info provided is correct? Also see WP:Citing sources.
2) Another point is WP:Notability. I argue that the milepost info is not notable to the general readers, except to maybe some railroad fans or some type of engineers. I think the fact that these info is only presented on 1 or 2 maps already proves my points.
Now, more than 1 editors have opposed your addition, meaning that the consensus is to not include it. Engaging in an WP:edit war in order to force your edit through is against Wikipedia rule. I urge you to stop adding that info unless you can adequately answer my points, or else you could be blocked if you persist in adding unverifiable information.— Chris! c/ t 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
(I was surprised to see the date for the opening of West Oakland stayed correct. A good thing, since aside from those dates it's hard to see what use the list is to anyone. Aside from the dates, can you find a notable fact anywhere in the article as it is now?) Tim Zukas ( talk) 21:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Tim Zukas, I invite you to the above talk page so you can explain your reasons as to why you think undoing all the changes I made on this article was necessary. I invite everybody on this section so that you can give us insight as to why your changes should be upheld. I do not believe you want to dialogue your changes but I'm willing to listen anytime within the next 7 days. You do not have to justify it all, but at the very least I would like to know why you think the first sentence deserves not to be changed at all. Please use: Talk:List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations for any feedback.
Thank you.
Swestlake ( talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You have absolutely no reason to "undo" other people's changes if you do not have the capability of defending/clarifying or elaborating your position. When people like me stand up, the hit-n-runners try to find the easy way out. This nonsense stops with me.
Your edits are now on my watchlist.
Swestlake (
talk)
09:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I undid your edits to Grade (slope) because you deleted material without giving any explanation either on the talk page or the edit summary. If you feel the article can be improved by removal of material, please provide some explanation. Thanks. — EncMstr ( talk) 17:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, vertical is defined as opposite the direction of gravity at any point. But as you follow the direction of gravity toward the center of the earth, it is not a STRAIGHT line. That's why the theoretical definition says "line of force". I'll try to get a specific citation for the definition, but right now either of us could get banned for messing with it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHart93 ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edit in " Solar time" did not provide an inline citation for a direct quotation. Please provide an inline citation. This is required by WP:CITE. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Will you please stop making wholesale edits to San Francisco International Airport without discussing them on the Talk page first. Your reason for your edits are really POV and I have no intention of starting a edit war. Nonetheless, you have deleted important information, which I hope will be reverted. Your whole editing history does seem to be destructive. Please remember you have been warned on your contributions before. Thank you, David J Johnson ( talk) 23:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
San Francisco International Airport. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You seem to also have been caught in an edit war at Newark Liberty International Airport in July, which nearly resulted in you being blocked for 3RR violations. You are at two for this 24-hour period. Thanks and please resolve on talk. WorldTraveller101( Trouble?/ My Work) 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Charles M. Schulz–Sonoma County Airport may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Tim. Please don't restore the rumours about the Union Pacific GTELs being uprated to 10,000hp to that article unless you can find a source for them. Wikipedia is for verifiable facts, not rumours. If there's a reliable source for the rumour then at least the existence of the rumour is a verifiable fact; without even that, it doesn't belong in the article. Dricherby ( talk) 00:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Pacific Air Lines may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Copy Editor's Barnstar | |
I award you this Copy Editor's Barnstar for insisting on clear, comprehensible, and grammatically correct articles. I do not usually give barnstars out, but you deserve this one following your recent work at Ministro Pistarini International Airport. Keep up the good work! Jetstreamer Talk 20:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Gerald R. Ford International Airport may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Sioux Gateway Airport may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 23:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim, I've noticed you reverted my edit at Boeing 727. I thought many readers might be unfamiliar with Mach as a unit of speed, and that it would be a good idea to convert the "max cruise speed" statement in mph and kn (as has been done in the next line about the typical cruise speed). Thus, the two items would also be made comparable. I just don't understand your claim that "727 doesn't cruise at 685 mph". I calculated it: Mach 0.9 is equivalent to 685 mph.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Toledo Express Airport shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfw79 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfw79 ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I have reviewed the report filed again you at WP:ANEW. Both you and the other editor are edit warring at Toledo Express Airport. However, the other editor is at least making an effort to discuss the dispute on the article talk page. I don't see you contributing to that discussion. So, consider this a warning that if you continue to revert on the article without discussion and consensus, you risk being blocked.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Toledo Express_Airport". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems we have a difference in opinion on some of the revisions you made to the article. Note that this article was peer reviewed and also passed a FAC and, thus, found be "well-written" and "comprehensive" (per WP:FACR). Along with the unnecessary wording of some sections, here are some specific gripes:
I don't edit war, but I also don't like roughshod revisions to an FA, and would like to see this resolved in a reasonable manner. Niagara Don't give up the ship 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Everyone agrees the curve is something like 9 degrees (part 9 deg, part 9 deg 15 min PRR used to say) which is why it's clearly not 3485 ft long, and clearly doesn't climb 66 ft. Looking at the online aerials the total angle is less than 220 deg. (210 deg might be close, tho.) Tim Zukas ( talk) 17:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The only "source" that tries to give the actual length of the curve is the one-inch-to-400-feet PRR track chart, which none of us has. We can measure it off the online aerials and probably get it within a hundred feet or so-- certainly that will show the 3485 ft is wrong, if that's still not plain to you. Tim Zukas ( talk) 19:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
A 9.4-degree curve is 620 ft radius; you can measure for yourself on the online aerials and see the inside track is close to that while the outside track is 650+ ft. The PRR chart showed about half the curve 9-deg and half 9.25 deg.
"to change [220 deg] would be original research"
Original reseach would be going to the curve with a transit and measuring the actual angle. Nothing original about measuring online aerials that anyone else can measure for himself. Tim Zukas ( talk) 23:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Some of the radii and degree conversions mentioned are not accurate to the nearest foot. By railroad (chord) definition, 9 degree curve is 637.3 ft radius. A delta angle 220 would make arc length 2447 and sum of station chords 2444 to the nearest foot. 9.25 degree (9 deg 15 min) is 620.1 radius. A delta angle 220 would make arc length 2381 ft and sum of station chords 2378 9.4 deg (9 deg 24 min) is 610.2 radius Those numbers change only slightly if you use the arc (highway) definition for degree of curve, to 636.620, 619.414, and 609.530 radii, and similar changes in length. If there are multiple radii in the curve, the length will be somewhere in between given values. BillHart93 ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:ELPOINTS number 2. External links do not belong in body text. They belong in the external links section unless they are used as references. That is why I keep removing the links you've added to airport articles. They just don't belong there according to the guidelines. oknazevad ( talk) 16:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Overland Limited. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
Tim, I have prepared a case page about your habit of editing logged out. You can see the page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas. To avoid getting blocked for violations of WP:MULTIPLE, you should make certain that you are logged in for all edits. Binksternet ( talk) 00:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Mackensen
(talk)
21:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Spike Wilbury (
talk)
11:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Per the solid consensus in the ongoing ANI thread, I have blocked you for an extended period appropriate to the escalating seriousness of your behavior and considering the fact that you continued even after one of your IP addresses was blocked for 3 months. There were a number of calls to make the block indefinite, but I think you should be allowed to reflect on and adjust your approach to editing, and possibly contribute constructively when you return. You have gotten significant feedback that your fellow editors expect you to discuss and explain your edits, stop performing mass unexplained edits/removals, respect consensus, and avoid editing anonymously or with alternate accounts to avoid scrutiny or attention. If you fail to do these things when you return, you will be blocked indefinitely without discussion or fanfare. I should also note that any IP or alternate accounts that appear to be you will be blocked on sight for violating WP:SOCK. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 11:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Western Airlines may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 02:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at
Alamogordo–White Sands Regional Airport.
Boomer Vial
Holla
06:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Tim, WTF are you up to? Slow down and explain yourself and maybe you won't have to be blocked as a vandal. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing →
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
SQL
Query me!
13:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Tim Zukas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Check any of my edits, looking for vandalism. (You won't find any, of course, and the accusation tells you all you need to know about the accuser.) If you've got time to spare, check any of my edits looking for one that isn't an improvement.
Decline reason:
"Vandalism" is debatable, but you should be well aware that your style of editing, even if you are right, is extremely unhelpful. As an obvious non-improvement I'd point to this edit (without looking too closely at many others). Besides, per WP:BRD, when someone reverts your changes, you engage them in a discussion, not just revert back. Huon ( talk) 22:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Any admin that disagrees with my block is welcome to undo it, or change it without consulting me. SQL Query me! 22:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Speaking as an editor, I disagree. He was given a six-month block in 2015 for this exact behavior, which he promptly resumed after the block expired. I don't see why he should be unblocked unless he's prepared to agree that his behavior is a problem and that he needs to meet other editors on this project halfway. Mackensen (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, I get it that there's a long history and good reason to block; but "because your account is being used only for vandalism" is not the reason. It's odd editing, but not vandalism. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Tim Zukas. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Binksternet (
talk)
05:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Tim Zukas. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Transv Mercator".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DannyS712 ( talk) 06:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)