User talk:Aviationwikiflight

Your edit to Skol Airlines Flight 9375 has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Frost.xyz (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted one edit about Saudia 163 bing in Mayday in future, so the thing is Saudia 163 is confirmed on mayday, so please dont revert it ok? thanks Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's been confirmed but you have not provided a source. I have reinstated the fact that it will be covered but for now, I've just added "citation needed". Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

On English WP, a proposed deletion tag may not be re-added (except to the biography of a living person) once it has been objected to (as this one was).

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Proposed deletion before using the mechanism.

Also, PROD may not be used for any remotely controversial deletions.

The correct venue for most deletions is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Just FYI, in my time I have nominated dozens of articles and other pages for deletion, and not once have I ever used PROD to do it.

Lastly, please carefully read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which explains some important things one should be aware of before nominating articles.

Well, now you know.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of MattChatt20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're using proxies and web hosts. If you turn off your VPN, you stand a better chance of being unblocked. Trying to hide your IP address just makes you look more guilty. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I live in a country where I have to use a VPN to use the internet. There are some vpn connections that are IP banned so I have to use a certain connection to edit on wikipedia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could consider a temporary IP block exemption while the user puts through an email request for a permanent one per the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY? Daniel Case (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:deadline - we can wait for the request to come through. I will put the unblock request on hold. The results of IPECPROXY should take care of the rest, eh? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the current status of my block? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Do you have any thoughts here? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I've already posted. This user is a likely sock puppet using proxies. If they want to be unblocked, they'd have to stop using proxies and show us their real IP address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. @Aviationwikiflight: Have you read and attempted to resolve via WP:IPECPROXY? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to resolve it via WP:IPECPROXY but i haven't gotten a response. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that I have as stated above is that using a VPN is the only way to use the internet. Some VPN connections work better than others so sometimes I do change the connections. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: This is Ticket:2023101510001873 if you want to have a look? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an OTRS account. I have no idea what the above (on-wiki) discussion is even about. If this ticket is about asking for IPBE, the answer should be trivially easy. Blocked editors don't need IPBE – it would do them no good. If the ticket is about the block, it should be either on-wiki or at UTRS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Sorry. Don't have (or want) OTRS/VRT. Perhaps you could unblock if you think it's warranted. On the other hand, we might need to just evaluate the non-sensitive information. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'd love to unblock, but damn. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Do you have a master that you are connecting this account to? The CU data shows proxy use, but no strong overlap with another account. CU data makes the reason for using a VPN plausible. I am very tempted to unblock here. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sock master is listed in the block log, on the user page, in the {{uw-block}} template, and in the unblock request itself. I don't really know why you're so convinced this is not a sock puppet if you're not even aware who the suspected master is. But I'm getting a bit tired of being constantly pinged about this block, so do whatever you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mind, just to clarify what I did wrong, what evidence do you have that ties my account to user Mattchatt20?

I am new to wikipedia so prior to me getting messaged about my PROD violation and copyright violation, I thought that what I was doing was right. I had read various guidelines but my knowledge on how to use and/or interpret them was limited. Obviously, know, I do understand that the violations that I commited were dumb.

But what I don't understand is that for the past few months, I have made numerous edits, some helpful, some controversial. For me, in my opinion, it would seem dumb and a waste of time to create an account, make edits to improve articles, some reverted for which I understand the reasons, just to throw it away because of these violations (if these were the reason for my block).

And just to add one more time, even though this makes me look guilty to you, I live in a country where using a VPN is needed, normal internet connection doesn't let me access google.

I just hope that I could go back to editing articles and improving them because seeing some articles that look in a "bad state" is just honestly annoying and sad.

Hope you have a nice day.

-Aviationwikiflight Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Totally out to sea. can you light me a beacon to see my way? accept/decline/other? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: What do you think? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NJP seems pretty confident here, but they also seem to be done with this. I'd say it's up to you. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me!? Quelle horreur! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There... now you don't have to make the decision, DFO. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting the unblock request :) .

Finally, I just have two questions;

Do I need to get an IP block exemption to continue editing on wikipedia?

And lastly, does the box stating that I've been indefinitely banned need to be removed or not? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the IP block exemption. You are now free to cleanup your talk page as you see fit. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the clarifications. Have a nice rest of your day. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should email the checkusers for a WP:IPBE. checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the lack of sourcing for that death toll. It's odd that the best information comes from Hawaii. I've found some evidence of deaths in Chile, but very few. Mikenorton (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you moving Icelandic air crashes articles away from their WP:COMMONNAME? Alvaldi (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRITERIA and WP:AVTITLE, the format of: <year> Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash is way more recognizable than having Héðinsfjörður or Glitfaxi in the title.

To english speakers, I don't think Héðinsfjörður or Glitfaxi are commonly recognizable names. Using the format that I've put per WP:AVTITLE, we know the year, what airline was involved, we know the accident aircraft + what happened. The title of the two moved pages can easily be typed, they are more precise, it is consistent with other plane accident articles and there is just the right amount of sufficient information in the title for someone to understand what the article is about.

Per Collins Dictionary, the definiton of air crash is a a crash involving one or more aircraft so the use of the term "air crash" in the title is therefore incorrect. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right on the point with the term "air crash", that is a translation error on my part. The term "Plane crash" would be the correct one.

That said, both of these accidents get their notability from significant Icelandic sources where they are best known as Flugslysið í Héðinsfirði, which in english translates to The Héðinsfjörður plane crash, and Glitfaxaslysið which is probably best translated as The Glitfaxi accident. While I don't mind making minor descriptive changes, such as adding the year, what should not be changed is removing the location from title the Héðinsfjöður crash and the plane name from the Glitfaxi crash, as that is what they are known by.

Even WP:AVTITLE, which should be noted is neither an official Wikipedia guideline or policy and doesn't override anything in WP:COMMONNAME, does state that if the event has acquired a popular name, that name should be used. Alvaldi (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better then, to keep both titles like for example on the page of The Smolensk Air Disaster? For example we can either name the article with my format or your format, you choose, then on top of the infobox, we can insert both titles so:

The Héðinsfjörður plane crash

1947 Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash

Glitfaxaslysið

1951 Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash

Is this format acceptable? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objections having the "19## Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash" as a secondary title for those particular articles as long as the main title refers to what they are commonly known by. Generally, notable crashes in Iceland become known by the location where they happened but occasionally the name of the plane involved (though that seems to have been more common in the early years of flight in Iceland when there were fewer planes in the country). I did ask the creator of the Héðinsfjörður crash their opinion on this matter and they've started a discussion about it on Talk:1947 Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash so maybe it is better if we continue the discussion there. Alvaldi (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviationwikiflight! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. McSly (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment "The phrase does not state that UIA752 was an accident". The sentence says that that 1907 is the third deadliest accident, which means that the two deadlier crashes were also accidents. C5mjohn (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to go about this since using the term "incident" wouldn't be correct since an incident is an event in which no fatalities occurred and damage to the aircraft is limited. An incident would also refer to a deliberate action that resulted in the plane crashing. UIA752 is also currently listed in the "Aviation accidents and incidents" category. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boeing 777X, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, I'm starting this discussion on your talk page where you'll see it. As far as your edit summary, Per the summary parameter: Brief summary of the occurrence. State the fate of the aircraft, if not obvious from the title (e.g. crashed, disappeared etc) and any relevant circumstances. Accident causes are often several and complex: they should be left for the article body. Cherry-picking some of them for the summary (e.g. pilot error) is likely to breach neutrality. See discussion., that edit was made unilaterally by Deeday-UK on November 2, 2023, citing a discussion at Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#Accident cause. As you can see, the only person even mentioning the removal of causes was Deeday-UK, so there is no history of a project consensus. This past February, when Deeday-UK was making changes to other articles similar to yours, I contacted them at their talk page User talk:Deeday-UK#Your edit to US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211 to challenge a similar edit that he had made and to ask where this "project consensus" that they were citing existed, and they only mentioned that template talk page. Another talk page watcher also joined in that conversation and stated their opinion that that discussion is not the basis of a consensus. If you think there's widespread support for the removal of accident causes from the infobox summary (I don't), then by all means start a discussion about it, but it should be at a place where people actually watch, like WP:AVIATION or something like that, not the talk page of a template that nobody looks at. I have removed that template help text that Deeday-UK added for now, and made a note at the template help document talk page. I also have pinged that user since I have been mentioning them here. Please self-revert those changes and start a discussion. I'd appreciate a ping when you do. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for pointing it out, I wasn't aware that this wasn't an official consensus.

I've started a discussion regarding this "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence: Should the summary parameter include causes?" to see what's the general opinion on this matter at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation

And just one question, when you say:

Please self-revert those changes and start a discussion.

what do you mean by self-revert these changes? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already started removing these unilateral and undiscussed summary changes. I would recommend seeking an official consensus before making such mass changes. Cutlass^Ciera 23:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi regarding your statement at AfD the nom cannot vote, is this true? Their opinion is usually clear in the nomination, but I'm not sure there is a prohibition against posting in the thread as well. CMD (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In discussing articles for deletion (or other discussion types such as merge requests, split requests...), the original proposer can only cast one vote, which is their reasoning regarding a deletion proposal. The proposer can obviously still comment, they can reply to votes cast by other users but voting after they have opened a discussion is not allowed and since they are suggesting a deletion, repeating it should be avoided. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody casts any votes, they are discussions. It is common for example to see "Delete as nom" or similar, so that guide is not entirely accurate. CMD (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe stating "Delete as nom" could pass but, "the nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this." Replying or commenting is what should normally be done if you've already voted (whilst changing your vote is allowed). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the wikitiquette, and while there are a lot of things editors should do, that they should does not mean other editors are meant to police this at its strictest interpretation. CMD (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not to the strictest but the user in question was repeatedly doing it across multiple discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviationwikiflight -- I see you removed many citations from the ATR 52 article here: [1]. What this means is that there are now a stack of facts in that article that are now considerably distanced from their citation. In a static piece of writing, this wouldn't be a problem. However, here on Wikipedia, it means that there's every chance that in future, someone else will come and insert a new fact (and hopefully new citation) between the original fact and its far-removed citation. We end up with a fact that is now either effectively unsourced or appears to be attributed to the wrong source. I'd like to roll back this change, but wanted to get your thoughts first. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per WP:REPEATCITE, a source that is repeated multiple times in a paragraph does not require an inline citation for every mention unless there is a specific page number for a claim. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The example there is a very different in two ways:

• it's dealing with information that's already been cited. We've already established that the elephant is a mammal (3), so we don't need a citation every time we say that.
• wait until the end of the claim to add the cite. In the second sentence there, we don't need to cite source (4) three times within the same claim.

In the ATR52 article, each claim that you removed the citations from was a fresh, new claim that had not already been cited in the article. As you've left it now, the article has a lot of uncited claims in it. Therefore, I'll add the citations back. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "Project Consensus"? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 12:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "project consensus" that I'm referring to is on this discussion regarding as to whether the summary parameter in aircraft occurence infoboxes should contain summaries. Basically, a user with minimal consensus on the talk page decided to change the summary parameter to include "no causes" based on the fact that aviation accidents are usually complex and (over)simplifying the causes might be misleading. This change was recently reverted and I've started a discussion regarding this issue. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit here:

• Initial change (by me, as a result of an objection raised at FAC): [2] .
• Revert 1: [3] .
• Revert 2: [4] .
• Revert 3: [5].

That was why I left a notification about the policies about edit warring on that user's talk page, as suggested at Wikipedia:Edit warring#What to do if you see edit-warring behavior. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Revert 1" cannot be considered a revert since they were adding something to the article and not reverting a revision to their preference.

"Revert 2" is a revert but the fact that it happened nearly a month later doesn't hold much weight.

"Revert 3" could be considered a revert since they are adding another image with a possibly incorrect tag but they're not restoring it to a previous version since it was a different image.

For it to be considered edit-warring, most of the time, the user would have to breach the three-revert rule. In other cases, the three-revert rule isn't needed for it to be considered edit warring. I feel like a multi-level warning template would've been better, like using uw-ewsoft at first, since they weren't exactly consistent reversions and it would've warned them at least once to not engage in what appeared to be edit warring. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're looking very closely at the diffs I've provided above. In any event, I thought it would be nice to inform the user about WP's policies about edit warring, since they do not appear to be familiar with them. But since you've reverted my notification, perhaps you can explain it to them better than I did? RecycledPixels (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like the person not paying enough attention to the diffs is me, as the third was a completely different picture. My apologies, I was wrong above. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt explain removing categories in the redirect page of Air Europa Flight 045, that's why I reverted your edit. Filipinohere (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a basic redirect (see WP:R#Editing the source directly), a simple #REDIRECT [[___]] tag is sufficient. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You are right about "Removing an image of an aircraft is not censorship, hence why this is an inappropriate warning". Except the fact that we aren't talking about an image. This was the edit I'm talking about. As you can see, the user censored a word, therefore I reverted his edits and gave him a warning. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, you are only partly correct. They may have censored a swear word which, I agree can be offensive to some, whilst also adding Crash Sound and Impact and replacing the Stall warning with the official name of the system, CAWS, on the CVR recording which can be useful. Instead, you should've just partially reverted their edit by uncensoring the word in question by explaining what was wrong with their edit instead of completely reverting it. The tag wass unnecessary since it was only a minor change. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2006 Kenyan Air Force Harbin Y-12 crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Star.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to bring Dreameditsbrooklyn to WP:AN/I for WP:CIR. Unless you disagree, I'll start the process within the hour. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've decided against AN/I at this time. I will still be watching this very closely and may change my mind if their behavior gets any worse. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the behaviour continues or worsens , I won't be against bringing them to AN/I but for now, I suggest we move forward and just see what happens. If nothing changes, well then I guess AN/I could and probably will be the way forward. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ZLEA: After two more edits were performed on 2024 Saurya Airlines Bombardier CRJ200 crash and Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283, [6] [7], are we approaching a report or should we wait if further similar edits are performed? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should bring this to WT:AATF first. I had discovered this discussion when looking for evidence the first time around. I did not notice any clear consensus forming, but the context of aviation was notably excluded from the discussion as "accident" and "incident" are industry terminology. Hopefully a discussion at WT:AATF will reinforce that consensus and prevent further disruption. But if nothing else, it could serve as a paper trail if the behavior continues and we have to take this to AN/I. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this edit of yours is false. Let me explain: Spair Flight 3601 crashed soon after takeoff from Russia. But this statement "Flight 3601 tried to take off around 23:00, but when the engines were started, all electrical systems failed." needs no clarity. Why? Because this statement is said after "The electrical malfunction was repaired and the plane took off at 00:10 on August 19, 1996 heading for Malta." That basically means that the pilots turned on the engines, electrical systems failed, it was then 'fixed' and then the airframe took off. Your reasoning "This sentence is confusing. How did Spair Airlines Flight 3601 manage to take off if all electrical systems failed?" doesn't make sense because its implying the pilots tried to takeoff without electrical power yet it was 'fixed' after and the sentence after doesn't mention takeoff, it mentions repairs then takeoff. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably missed the part where it said they repaired the electrical systems, but the sentence still doesn't make sense. Attempting to take off implies that they've already taxied all the way to the runway, and so as the sentence says, just then, they attempted to start the engines. Does that mean that somehow, without the engines, Flight 3601 managed to go all the way from the gate to the runway without engine power or did they attempt to start the engines at the gate and the electrical systems failed? If it is the latter, then the phrasing is wrong. Maybe the wording of the tag could've been more elaborated on but even then, the sentence is still confusing. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see. I'll try to fix the wording and then I'll remove the warning. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I use infobox plane1 on articles as US Airways Flight 1549 or American Airlines Flight 77 or other articles have Infobox aircraft occurrence use wreckage photo first . User @Midori No Sora reverted my changes on such articles. I think use plane1 then the image will be in a more visible position. Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Tô Ngọc Khang As Midori No Sora said in their edit summary, the "plane1" parameters are used only when more than one aircraft were involved. Both US Airways Flight 1549 or American Airlines Flight 77 involved only one aircraft, so it is improper to use the "plane1" parameters. Any further images of the aircraft, including pre-accident photos, can be included in the article body. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of what ZLEA said is mentioned here. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the change does sound like a good idea but I would advise to maybe first discuss this on an appropriate talk page such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation or Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	thanks for being so kind to the aviation community and helping a ton with the deletionist articles! :3 Lolzer3000 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it and have a nice rest of your day! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you too! :D Lolzer3000 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I was about to create the article for this flight using French & Italian wiki as a base to translate, but saw you drafted it, and didn't touch it for a month or so. Are you still working on it?

Mind creating it, so I can add the information from the Italian Wikipedia?

Cheers! --Global Donald (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding the draft, I'm still working it but it will take some time to finish it as I'm basically trying to cross reference the information from the Italian Wikipedia and the citations, as the references redirect you to the main page of the website instead of providing the actual news article, which is quite tedious if you ask me. If I'm still planning on expanding the draft which includes finalizing the accident section, and hopefully, if I find enough sources, start an investigation section along with a few other details that shouldn't take too long to include. Cheers! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aviationwikiflight

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username SafariScribe and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect 1958 Independent Air Travel Vickers Viking crasb, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 4 § 1958 Independent Air Travel Vickers Viking crasb.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|SafariScribe}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks a lot.

Basically regarding the redirect, which was recently closed, the move was an error on my part unintentionally typing "crasb" instead of "crash". If I had known that a speedy deletion template could've been used, I probably would have done so. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aviationwikiflight! I've created an article and you have significantly contributed to it and now, its appearance is now on the main page. Thank you very much for making this possible. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! It was quite a pleasure working on the article in efforts to expand it. I appreciate it a lot and I look forward in continuing to contribute in this area with you and multiple other editors. Cheers. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aviationwikiflight. I have a question. So I've been reading a lot of articles for possible grammar fixes but there is just one thing that confuses me. I've been reading articles such as this and this but literally almost 100% of the words are written in present tense yet this was all in the past. Before I correct them (or falsely edit them), are the articles written in present or past tense? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:TENSE, "use past tense only for past events [...]" but according to WP:ADL, something I didn't even know existed until a few weeks ago, "it should be written with the historical present tense" though this only applies to List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. There might need to be more discussion surrounding this matter to clarify what tense should be used for such articles, but for now, I think it might be better to keep the status quo and only change if there isn't much consistency within the article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here regarding consensus for use of RS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Regards, Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that linking a policy or guideline without even attempting to explain your reasoning isn't really helpful right? I understand what WP:RS is about and don't see a reason for you to link it. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because most RS and the title of the entry itself call it a crash, not an accident, which are two different words with sometimes significant differences in meaning. This revert also makes the title inconsistent with the copy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Touques_Airbus_AS350B_helicopter_crash&oldid=prev&diff=1245844290 Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has already been discussed multiple times, with the most recent discussion at Talk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283#Insistence on use of 'accident'. I have already expressed my opinion and have nothing else to add other than the need for you to gain consensus before making such changes. It is clear that there is no support to "deprecate" or hold in a lesser value the use of accident. Maybe there could be more discussion surrounding this topic but for now, you're really not doing anyone any favors by continuing to swap accident with crash. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do use the term accident. For example, the BEA investigation report. The wording we use is not dictated by a style guide used by some reliable sources, and using the exact same term over and over again is itself poor writing. Therefore, we should use the terms "crash", "accident", or whatever else reliable sources use to describe the event throughout the article. However, current consensus on aviation accident article layout is that the section itself should be titled "Accident". Feel free to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation if you want to change that consensus, but until then, the section titles should remain at the very least. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not modify the section title. I edited the prose in the body itself to be consistent with the title of the entry and with what most RS use. Also, consensus in a niche area of the project does not override RS, which generally go with crash for this incident. It is certainly an issue that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation is adhering to a terminology that consistently and increasingly conflicts with terminology used by most RS. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly an issue that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation is adhering to a terminology that consistently and increasingly conflicts with terminology used by most RS. Not most RS, only RS bound by the AP Stylebook which are arguably unreliable in determining the correct usage of the term "accident". It's not a coincidence that RS not bound by the AP Stylebook almost universally use the term "accident" as defined by the Convention on International Civil Aviation. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a similar case that has nothing to do with the AP Stylebook, just poor knowledge of terminology. Whenever referring to any paved surface of an airport, most news media tend to use the incorrect term "tarmac". Does one incorrect term render the entire source unreliable? No. Does that mean we should prefer that incorrect term even if most news media make the same mistake? Absolutely not. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and unfortunately most reliable news sources consistently use inaccurate terminology when covering topics about aviation. Sometimes it is because they simply don't understand the terminology, while other times it is because they are actively discouraged from using it. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor analogy because in many of these cases, crash is actually the better word to use than accident. See WP:Descriptor. Only use the term "accident" if a competent authority has concluded the event was accidental after a thorough investigation, and this finding is not controversial or contradicted by another authority, such as a court of law. Emphasis mine on "thorough" Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that this guideline applies to titling articles, not for what should be included in the article body, so your argument doesn't really hold water. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should inform the way we think about our use of language. But look, if you are insistent on adhering to a loaded word that violates NPOV and that frequently and increasingly conflicts with what RS use, I will spare us both the headache of changes as I come across existing articles in the aviation space (despite @ZLEA suggesting that we can and should use both)

I have met you for discussions about this repeatedly and respectfully. I appreciate that we disagree about these words, and I understand the basis of your argument. I just think it's concerning that either of you think this rises to the level of ANI as discussed above. Cheers Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem whatsoever with using the word crash and I'm ok with using both crash and accident. What I have a problem with is removing mentions of the word accident, insisting that the word accident should be held in a lesser value, even when people have disagreed with this stance. You've repeatedly stated the same argument over and over again, exhibiting what in my opinion ressembles WP:IDHT behaviour, and we're now going absolutely nowhere, so please, I suggest you "drop the stick" until the next time where we might have to rediscuss this topic. – Cheers. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some have disagreed. Others have also agreed that 'accident' violates NPOV and should be avoided. If you'd carefully read my latest message to you, I just explained how I plan to drop the stick and move forward. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your plan was/is to "drop the stick", why reiterate your points in a negative way? Anyways, I have nothing else to add other than what was previously stated. Cheers. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, in the article "Largest airlines in the world" you deleted the references of planespotters.net. Please note that this reference is not regarded to be unreliable per WP:RSP. WikiPate (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following multiple discussions, Planespotters.net was deemed to be unreliable. See: WP:PLANESPOTTERS; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]. It doesn't need to be listed at WP:RSP to be considered unreliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviationwikiflight is right. The (lack of) reliability of Planespotters.net has been discussed numerous times. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. There is an editor called JKSX who keeps changing the word "accident" to "crash". He has done it on Boeing 737 MAX groundings and 2024 Kamchatka Mil Mi-8 crash articles. He's also reverted one of your edit. I've given him two warnings but he erased it in his talk page and because of him, I got the edit warring warning which is silly. Please help me here. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reverted the edits for now (which have just been reverted...) but they are new to Wikipedia so it might be better to assume good faith. I’ve opened a discussion at their talk page to discuss the issue. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the edit warring template might have been a bit much on my part. However both of yall were engaged in an (underwhelming) back and forth argument about who's right and who's wrong on your talk page. While I myself think that you were in the right, we still have to assume good faith (as Aviationwikiflight mentioned) in new editors to prevent from discouraging them from potentially being a net positive to the project. I will remove the warning (though you can do it yourself per WP:OWNTALK), and I wish a good day. fanfanboy (block) 22:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I reach disagreements like that, I sometimes just don't think right and make moves only an idiot makes. And yes, I probably should've went a bit easier on him. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good, we all make mistakes. And as I admitted earlier I was also partially in the wrong. Hope you have a good day :). fanfanboy (block) 22:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing links from planespotters.net without providing a more suitable reference. The tags ^{[better source needed]} and / or ^{[unreliable source?]} has to be used for these circumstances. A semi-sufficient source is still better than none as per our guidelines. Best regards. 2001:A61:1206:C601:11D7:77EB:8D5A:6CCB (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planespotters.net is an unreliable, self-published, user-generated source and is really not a reliable source. The reliability of the said source has already been determined as unreliable. As it is an unreliable source, I am well allowed to remove the citation, especially if unreliable. Per WP:CHALLENGE, "any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Whilst I am not going to remove the material, the ^{[citation needed]} tag will hopefully alert others that a reliable source is needed. There is no concrete rule that states ^{[better source needed]} should be used over ^{[citation needed]}. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you quoted clearly states to remove the content *together* with the unreliable source, not the source alone - therefore you violate our editing standards doing so. Either tag the sources as in need for replacement or remove the entire content (which might be considered vandalism). To resolve this issue is why the use of both tags is highly encouraged. The way you do it is very much unconstructive as it removes all remarks to where the content has originally come from, please refrain from doing so and use ^{[better source needed]} instead. Further changes will be undone and reported, e. g. for discussion at the aviation portal. 2001:A61:1206:C601:11D7:77EB:8D5A:6CCB (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an unconstructive way of editing nor does it “violate” editing standards. The source is clearly unreliable for the reasons stated above and Wikipedia should not contain such sources until it can be proven as reliable. The origin of such information is either unsourced or user-generated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is considered unreliable. The way you handle it still violates our policies though, including the one you quoted. Sources in need of replacement are to be tagged as explained (to "alert" other users, as you stated) or removed with the entire content. What you do can be considered vandalism and will be treated as such. 2001:A61:1206:C601:11D7:77EB:8D5A:6CCB (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, could you please cite the guidelines or policies that I’m supposedly currently violating? I’m currently unaware of such guidelines. It is not a requirement to remove the entire content nor is it a requirement to replace the removed source with another one. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) The guideline you quoted clearly states to remove the content *together* with the unreliable source, not the source alone No it doesn't. The only thing even remotely close to that in WP:CHALLENGE is the following (emphasis mine), "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups". Aviationwikiflight is under no obligation to replace unreliable sources after removing them, nor are they required to remove the now unsourced content in most cases. Their actions are neither unconstructive nor have they violated any editing standards. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aviationwikiflight. Do you think that we should replace current photo on infobox of China Airlines Flight 611 by this photo ? Thank you ! Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 Kursk offensive, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aviationwikiflight. I created Korean Air Lines Flight 642 (The accident of Korean Air Boeing 707 in 1976). Can you help me to improve this article ? Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tô Ngọc Khang: Even with the sources that I've found, I doubt this draft will get accepted. This at least has some coverage (search for "Korean Plane Crash" to find the section) and this too but there isn't enough continued coverage in secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the event that would warrant a standalone article. The event also lacks lasting effects or long-term impacts. Hopefully, if there exists more coverage of the event, this draft could get accepted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Singapore Airlines Flight 321 you reverted my edit saying that the aircraft is painted in the Star Alliance livery is unsourced, I have already put in my edit summary "shown in the picture" that it is, there's already a picture of the aircraft at the top which means there's already proof at the top, how is it still unsourced if there's already proof added before the information is? Metrosfan (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Metrosfan The photo only indicates that the aircraft was at one point painted in that livery. If you want to state that it currently wears the livery, you need to find a reliable source for it. On a side note, I'm not entirely sure the livery is relevant to the incident. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the image does show that the aircraft had a Star Alliance livery, there needs to be a reliable source that specifically states that the aircraft sported this specific livery on this specific flight. Besides that, I don't think the information is too relevant to the article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you added a notability template to Key Lime Air. What do you think about merging the article with Denver Air Connection? DAC now seems to be the public face of Key Lime. There are a whole slew of news reports on the Googles that mention Key Lime, but most of the reports directly concern DAC and mention Key Lime only in passing. Carguychris (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I would not be opposed to merging, both airlines don't seem to be notable enough for standalone articles to be written on them. I'm struggling to find any significant coverage relating to both airlines, with this news article being the best that I've found. Any thoughts? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now why there shouldn't be a cause on the EgyptAir article, but would it also apply for the Boeing 737 Max crashes? Thanks Cutlass^Ciera 05:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although we could benefit from a discussion in a centralized place, in my opinion, for both Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, I would keep the summaries as they are as they accurately describe the events in brief. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I cut-and-paste your deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Aéro-Frêt An-12 crash, with minor edits? I intend to AfD American Airlines Flight 102. Carguychris (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, feel free to do so. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Aviationwikiflight, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I also wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Enjoy the holidays and have a happy new year! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite agreement among multiple experienced editors and an overwhelming agreement among reliable sources, you've chosen to revert multiple editors, including myself at Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 to insert your preferred style for the entry. Please stop and meet us in the talk page. You can't continue to insert a word you prefer when there is a strong and ongoing disagreement about the use of the word among other contributors. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may have presented "compelling" evidence but as of yet, look at the talk page and tell me whether you see a consensus to swap the words. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow reliable sources. That's wikipedia policy. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is also a Wikipedia policy. I invite you to cite me a policy/guideline that says that we have to use the more commonly used word. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]