User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 4

The Return of the Native

That ain't all I'm having trouble keeping down when it comes to him.

*sigh* I'm heading out of the office in a moment - once I get home I'll write something up and see what we can do. Thanks for the tip, as always. Enjoy your trip - here's hoping it's improving. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:BA38 ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, he might have just walked into your trap! MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruislip

Could you explain your edit summary for your edit of Ruislip in which you reverted my edit? Harrison49 (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coolkenno

I may be wrong, but should this article not be called CoolKenna? (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2011 (GMT)

New Wackett Warrigal article

Hi YSSYguy, another obscure Australian plane article created... the Wackett Warrigal, see what you think... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekbu (talk • contribs) 09:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hinterland Aviation

As you are an Australian aviation enthusiast I am intrigued as to why you nominated the above for a SD. It would seem to me to be in a similar vein to an article you created de Bruin Air. Regards Paste Let’s have a chat. 09:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Wikiproject on Commons?

Hey mate, I've had an idea of starting an Aviation WikiProject on Commons. I have created a page at Commons:User talk:Russavia/Proposal where I hope that if other editors think this is a good idea, we can all come up with ideas, etc. Please keep all comments on that page for time being, and if you know of other editors on Commons or on other language projects who might be interested in commenting, coming up with ideas, etc, please let them know of the discussion. Let's see if this could be a workable project. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 23:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A kitten for you!

For the good work you do related to photographs. :D Some of your contributions found on your user page are fantastic!

LauraHale (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, YSSYguy. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 00:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hello, we are the chartered exporter for Chinese utility aircraft Y-12. I noticed the photo of Harbin Y-12 is uploaded by you. Could you add the website for this aircraft www.y-12.com.cn to its wiki page(aircraft type part)? I tried but did not success. Aerolimin (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PauknAir Flight 4101

You did a major cleanup[1] on this article two years ago but the biggest problem with it was still there. The cause of the crash was totally wrong. 'A greater than allowable blood alcohol level of the pilot.' was said to be a major cause. ASN had the right info[2] and the article had a link to the accident report with the causes. I double checked(with Google translate) the alcohol level and two news reports said it was high because the pilot's body decomposition. The accident report doesn't list it as a cause anyway.

I don't blame you but rather the 13-year-old editor[3] who slandered the dead pilot for almost three years....William 00:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

humberside airport

Good afternoon

I am new to wiki, but not to Humberside airport and made some relevant and correct changes the other day which I see you have deleted.

Clearly you are more experienced at editing than I am, however, the changes I have made are correct and up todate. I work for MAG within the senior management team and whilst I dont want the page to become an advertorial for the airport, some of the information casts a rather negative view.

The overall pax number reduction is a fact, but its also a fact that the significant reduction during 2011 was the h4u collapse. The ryan air fall out with Alicante is also fact, yet the commentary seem slightly biased, indicating in my view that Humberside had lost out because of something within their own control.

KLM figures are correct and its important to note that the increase is significant vs the previous year.

I have amended the FBO detail, as Weston are now operating. The nightel operation can only deal with able bodied gas rig workers (some oil, but very limited) as it is not a commercial operation available to any and all that would like to stay there. No disabled access, or twin rooms, children etc are currently able to stay there. This is because its focused on only offshore workers and, as such, those with reduced mobility or some form of physical disability cannot work offshore for safety reasons.

The helicopter movements are now just above 1000 per month and, with new contracts in place, these will increase to over 1250 per month from June/July of this year. Again a very important point to note, relative to the reduction in tour operator flights.

With regards to Doncaster airport, again the view on the Humberside page is that the competition and flight choice is greater. I would argue that more information needs displaying on the full range of flights from HUY for people to make up their own mind. The reduction in all tour operator flights at regionals should be mentioned, in my view, rather than just focusing on the HUY reduction.

Would welcome your thoughts.

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latituded610 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning losses

Thanks for the move, nice to see somebody checks for my errors! MilborneOne (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KLM Airlines Cargo

Hi, I just thought you might like to know that I agree that this article should be merged with KLM, but you should use the merge template, which allows other users to discuss the merger and reach a consensus on what to do. If you want help merging articles in future you can get some at Help:Merging and Wikipedia:Merging. Happy editting.Petebutt (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USD 1,000 millions and USD 1 billions

I accept of your excuse for revert my edit: Etihad Airways. I am not accept of your excuse for revert my other edit: December 2002, due to Exxon disaster is U.S.A. disaster and need to using the U.S. scale. I reading this article: Long and short scales --B767-500 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Amelia Earhart miniseries

C/E from my talk page: G'day Bill, I've been a bit niggled by the article title. If it is a miniseries, then shouldn't the article be renamed Amelia Earhart (miniseries) or similar? YSSYguy (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, not my original article so the title was left alone, as I scrubbed the rest. Go for it, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Beech 18 Revisions

Good Day, Sir or Ma'am.



I must say that I find your continual editing of history rather puzzling.

The B18 page is a quick and easy reference to anyone in the world who may be curious about who operated B18s and where - and your comment about "two bit operators" has me quietly thinking about your bias re B18s.

Speaking as someone who owns two of them and has spent 14+ years researching them and maintaining them, my mission is to make the general public more aware about what when on where - and why - re B18s. Having somebody - on their own - randomly saying that this is irrelevant is disrespectful and rude to both those who have gone before and those who continue to make a difference in the B18 community.

For any questions re my credentials, refer to my airlines webpage - www.timetravelair.com

(And, you'll see that I do own 2 x B18s and I DO KNOW what I'm talking about re B18s.)

Count on my continuing to repost what you randomly - and for no reason - delete re B18s.



timetravelair

Timetravelair (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC-3

Numerous DC-3's were converted into C-47's (and vice versa after the war), weren't they? 607 sounds like a low number, but I will keep looking for sources. I haven't found any reliable sources citing the number flying after the war. The only differences betweens 3's and 47's I have found are cargo doors, larger fuel tanks, and things of that nature. Have you found any more significant differences? PatrickCarbone (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2012 Kenya Police helicopter crash

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How?

Do you and other editors keep discovering new aviation articles done by the socks of Ryan Kirkpatrick? I was wondering so I could keep a lookout too. He doesn't set off my usual tripwires aka have the 2012 template or List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft which are on my watchlist....William 00:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S-70 Models

The s-70 doesn't exist as a commercial model. The s-70 weighs more than the s-74 cum s-76 because it is armored, and is otherwise militarized.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

s-76 dispute resolution

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Sikorsky S-76". Thank you. --TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would you think?

If I WP:BOLD this article? Not even a write-off but it happened down your way....William 15:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd be chancing your arm so to speak. It's been through two AfDs, the most recent in January, with the outcome of both being "keep". The accident itself is part of a fairly-frequent problem of crews discovering the GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) principle when leaving their performance calculations to be done by the aircraft's FMS without checking the data manually and/or using common sense. There was very similar accident in which a Singapore Airlines a/c in NZ (just barely) took off with its actual empty weight being used as its supposed take-off weight for performance calculations (IIRC the difference was in the order of 114,000kg), and there has recently been a report released here about a Qantas crew that took off at the wrong speed after entering data as if they were using the full length of the runway instead of the intersection departure they actually performed. My opinion is, that as an example of the wider problem this is worth mentioning. I think that if you redirected it, it would probably be reverted pretty quickly. YSSYguy (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll do nothing. Essentially this is a could have been. Plane is back in service, no injuries alone fatalities. One day a flight crew will screw up the data(I remember KAL 007 being blamed on the pilots inputting something wrong) and a plane will crash but that doesn't mean ones where it almost happened are notable.
On a totally different subject, I have a novel in the works. Which will have some scenes set in Sydney. Would you be willing to answer a few questions about the city? We can do the Q&A in just a couple of emails. I'm 3 months off at least from needing any assistance....William 00:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, not a problem. I don't live there any more, but I have lived there for most of my adult life and was sent to a boarding school in Sydney, so I think I know it fairly well. YSSYguy (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Warbird Restoration redirect

I reverted your redirect of this article. While I appreciate the bold move, I think there's enough to this article that some discussion should occur before it is deleted and redirect. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian Air Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pilatus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied over at my talk page

Feel free to remove this notification....William 13:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft of the President of the United States

Two things:

  1. MOS says Army One, Navy One, and Coast Guard One should be bold the first time they're mentioned, since all redirect there
  2. The information about Nixon departing on Army One is mentioned in several foreign language Wikipedias, which leads me to question your claim that Army One wasn't used pbp 15:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a USMC helicopter (BuNo 150617), but apparently the callsign pertains to whether USMC or US Army pilots were flying it. There would need to be a WP:RS to categorically state that Army pilots were at the controls that day, and Wikipedia is not to be used as a source - as you no doubt know. YSSYguy (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, YSSYguy. You have new messages at talk:Virgin Australia.
Message added 20:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JetBlast (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sharp Airlines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Launceston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were you trying to be funny?

When you wrote 'speedy deleted under WP:SNOW.' Southwest Airlines Flight 1905 can be best compared to a bus skidding off an icy highway but nobody is hurt, just inconvenienced. In no way would it merit a WP article.

I would have nominated the article myself last night but I only learned of it just before I went to bed.

The media is hardly covering this incident. I think that says something. The article used tweets originally as sources. I removed them.

This article was created by the same editor who did Delta Airlines Flight 1063 about a plane that sucked in a few birds and went back to the airport. I offered the editor the alternative of the article being a redirect but he reverted. The rest was history. I made the same offer on 1905's talk page.

Have a great holiday season....William 11:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was, but not in that way; rather in my comment about eating an anvil. I didn't even think about the pun - or whatever it is - involved in calling for a SNOW delete. I saw your message on the article Talk page after I nominated it. On another topic, I was thinking about you just a few hours ago, wondering how the book is coming along. Cheers, and compliments of the season to you too. YSSYguy (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1905 should be a snow now. 11 editors agree it should be a deletion. One exception, but he says 'weak keep'. Unless the AFD changes course, I'll drop administrator 'The Bushranger' a note so to get the discussion closed.
The book is coming along. I'm going to write you a email with a few questions about Sydney sometime very shortly....William 21:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominicana DC-9 air disaster

I saw you cleaned up the article. Among what you did was take out the cause of the crash because it was unreferenced within the article. FYI, Airdisaster.com says[4] contaminated fuel. That is the only source I have been able to back up contaminated fuel causing the crash. I've checked the usual resources I use for crash article, Google News Archive and David Gero's book, Aviation Disasters. Airdisaster is a reliable source for crash articles but should we use it in this case?...William 16:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't try to find any other refs for the info. After looking at what was in the sources and what was in the article, and seeing how much was unreferenced or out-and-out wrong, I was only interested in purging the article of that bad material. I am wary of using airdisaster.com (and AvHerald for that matter), as I think they are WP:SPS and the airdisaster one is I think User-editable. However that is a matter of opinion, so if you want to restore the info regarding fuel contamination using airdisaster.com as the source, fill your boots. Just as a general note, I have now checked three articles started by the creator of this one (including the Vieques Air Link Islander one) and found all three to have significant problems. At best, the creator is careless with refs and engages in WP:SYNTH; at worst, he's just making stuff up. Our old 'friend' RK is fond of making events sound more dramatic than they really were, perhaps there's a bit of that going on. Without any refs to look at, it's basically impossible to know one way or the other. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just leave the cause out unless another source can be found. Editor Antonio Martin engages in WP:SYNTH. A cargo plane crash happens, AeroUnion Flight 302, when there are reportedly thunderstorms in the area so he concludes the crash was caused by windshear....William 13:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle flight (con)

Do you really think this is notable? If not, what rationale would you propose for a AFD?...William 13:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a con by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a specialised form of queue jumping. I'm by no means an expert, but it's possible that WP:NEO applies; I suspect that the term only exists among airline ground staff handling wheelchair passengers, and only in the USA. I have added a couple of sentences to the section of Cutting (in line) that mentions airline wheelchair pax. YSSYguy (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Ryan?

There's a thread[5] over at MilborneOne's talk page you should probably take a look at....William 14:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, YSSYguy. You have new messages at WilliamJE's talk page.
Message added 17:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

...William 17:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton City Airways

Thanks for keeping an eye on Brighton City Airways, the user keeps reverting to their prefered "airline" promotional version. As they have not made any edits outside the article we might have to conclude they may have some connection, but we will have to wait and see. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruskin Air Services - Barnstar

Hello YSSYguy! It is very kind of you to award me a Barnstar for uploading the image of the Ruskin Dakota - fictional of course! I just happened to visit the Duxford Museum during filming - pure luck. I have added quite a lot of Aviation images to fill gaps in WP's coverage and will continue to do so. . . . and now I know why YSSY, too. I flew through Mascot between 1970 and 1992. Best wishesRuthAS (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amjet Executive - Jan 9 modifications

Hello, Thanks for optimizing Amjet's profile. I just come back as I trust you to "get rid off" what you consider as non objective information. Otherwise I cannot agree with your modification on the 1st sentence of the introduction. The main activity of this company is "Business Aviation operator" (cf its AOC. A air charter company do not have any AOC. I cannot agree with "greek" company as our AOC is under EU compliance... This is the reason why I'd prefer to write "European Business Jet" instead of Greek...

Do not hesitate with your feedback

Christianbird — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianbird (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft in fiction

Awesome clean-up there!! Great work! - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks--it's nice to be appreciated for once.... --RFBailey (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Airlines flight 901

That was a nice change to Austrian Airlines flight 901. At first it was written like all flight 901's crash. I tried to change it but a guy named William would have nothing of it. You made it even better than my attempt. Great work! SupportMelissaKetunuti (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, but there was nothing to it really; that is pretty standard formatting for the lead in air crash articles. YSSYguy (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft in fiction

Good catch there. Red Dawn used modified Pumas as fill-ins for Mi-24s. - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I couldn't remember what was used - I've only seen a fragment of the movie - but I knew it wasn't Mi-24s ( I actually thought Sikorskys with prosthetic pylons, but maybe that was another movie).
Well the amusing thing is that it was already in the article - we are better than we think! - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Police

You deleted the casting information, I put hard work into. What do you know about Malayalam films better yet casting to delete. Have you got satisfaction from deleting a important part in that page? [User:Muthalathu|Muthalathu]] (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made a mistake, I didn't delete the information. All I did was fix a spelling mistake: "developement" → "development". There is no need to apologise. YSSYguy (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Seconds From Disaster

Hi! I've been noticing you've been making some edits at the Seconds From Disaster Wikipedia page, more specifically at the "Nature of Disaster" column. First of all, (and I'm not boasting) you may wish to know, if you haven't noticed yet, that I've performed alterations to that column a week ago, in order to convert all into the nature of disaster (discussion here). But I'm Portuguese and I'm still learning English, so it isn't perfect yet. However, it's getting closer... Back to the matter, if you notice any mistakes, I can't help but appreciate if you correct them. But I'd appreciate a reason. These are points on which I disagree with your edit:

  • 1st letter lower case -- it should be capital, and you're forgetting that on the Concorde crash;
  • Saying aircraft instead of plane(s), and train instead of trains
    • Aircraft has no plural, so plane(s) would help distinguish it. Plane crash isn't an unusual designation. (Is it? I doubt it, but may be wrong...) And aircraft crash sounds quite odd, doesn't it? Or am I the only one thinking so? Say it aloud. Doesn't plane crash sound much better? No? OK, doesn't matter. Planes collision, yes, that doesn't sound really good, but we can replace it for Mid-air collision or Runway collision, according to the case, can't we?
    • Why saying train collision when 2 trains collide? OK, trains collision may be bad English, but can't we find another way to say it without misleading readers to believe only 1 collided?
  • Deleting links -- is there any recommendation by Wikipedia that duplicate links in the same page should be eliminated, even if they're quite far one from another? I don't know, but I think that, unless in exceptional cases (like the risk the page will grow "too heavy"), there's no problem in duplicate links. But if they recommend the opposite, please get me an article saying so. Thanks.

Remember, I may be wrong, 'cause I know "nothing" about this, but I'd like if you told me so and we could reach a consensus. Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 12:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, YSSYguy! It appears that you either haven't noticed I've written you 4 days ago, or haven't yet had time to write me back, or even are consciently not desiring to write me back when having that possibility, maybe because you think I'm too stupid to be worthy of positive criticisms to my ideas. And that's kinda boring me up, have you thought about it? I'm sure the 2nd possibility (you got no time) is almost impossible, because, as I can see through your edits to Wikipedia, you've made 10 edits since I wrote you in the first place, unless you are able to edit Wikipedia, but unable to pay attention to me. (If that's true, I respect it.) Plus, one of those 10 edits of yours was performed actually in this very page, which, I believe, also eliminates the 1st possibility (you haven't noticed). The most likely possibility left is that you are deliberately not responding me when you can do so. If so, please stop with that, and answer me, as I wanna learn more about Wikipedia policies. If it's because of anything else, I forgive you, and respect your impossibilities. Thank you for reading and answering, should you do so. By the way, if you've got a busy life, I believe a pretty funny template for you to put in the heading of your talk page is this: {{busylife}}. Just try it for a while. What do you think? -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 19:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been busy - I have not edited WP very much this month; the number of edits is meaningless, it's the amount of time taken to perform those edits that is a better indication of a person's activity. Anyway, if I didn't have a capital letter, that was a mistake on my part. Next, read WP:OVERLINK, and as well as the article there was no need to add wikilinks for Portugal, Wikipedia or any of the other things you linked in your message above on my Talk Page (I have removed them, but if you look at my edit diff you will see them all). Third, "planes collision" and "trains collision" is just bad English, just as "Bom tarde" would be bad Portuguese; there is no such thing as a one-aircraft collision or a one-train collision: a collision takes place between two things, so there is no need for the plural. While we might say "plane crash" in conversation, it is a colloquialism and we should use the more-formal "aircraft crash" as this is an encyclopaedia, not a chat in a bar. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks a lot! I agree with that. Kind of amazes me that you know what is good and bad PT... Doesn't matter. Well, thank you for your contributions. About overlinking, I don't know, I'm the guy who likes to link stuff in Wikipedia. I don't know why; didn't know it was wrong, but it turns out it is... OK, thank you, and maybe "see" you soon!... -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 10:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nogie Meggison‎‎ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nogie Meggison‎‎ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nogie Meggison‎‎ until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
I noticed that you contributed to this article and I am notifying the author and all of the article's significant contributors (6). - ʈucoxn\talk 09:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for your input on a matter

Over at the Wikiproject Aviation/Aviation accident task force page [6]. You were chosen by myself because of your past work or input on aviation crash articles. Thank you for the help....William 11:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

This is just to let you know that I've only read two of your edit summaries but I sighed both times. "Impacted ground" is not meaningless; it may, say, have hit a building or crashed in the water. Summary is meant to say what was the outcome. — Lfdder (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well gee, I've been put in my place now haven't I? It's clear to me that I should do you the courtesy of availing myself of the next opportunity that presents itself to me of stepping in front of a large pantechnicon. They all end up hitting something on the surface of the earth, there ain't no avoiding gravity - so, your "summary" is as helpful as your sighing. YSSYguy (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same infobox is used for all kinds of aircraft incidents and accidents. There's no harm in being explicit. Unfortunately, you assume the same air of superiority you do in your edit summaries. — Lfdder (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was explicit the second time around, you were not. By the way, I wasn't assuming an air of superiority, I am superior. It's hard being me, accosted by fools and sighers. Run along now, there's a good chap. YSSYguy (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh all right then. — Lfdder (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eduard Neumann 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) 10:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Maroussi B.C. may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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) 10:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited General Aviation Manufacturers Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global Load Control

Hi, I edited the GLC site and would appreciate if you could revise it once more and let me know if there are still sentences that are too commercial for wikipedia. I would appreciate if a deletion of the page can be avoided. Thanks

330th Bomb Group (VH)

According to Wikipedia.,. a 'plane' is also an aircraft. Are you claiming that wikipedia is incorrect? Would love to hear it! B29bomber (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Plane" is a colloquialism and I use the word every day in conversation at work. There is no reason to use it in an encyclopaedia though. YSSYguy (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JETGO

Hi YSSYguy. I have again corrected the changes you made to the JETGO page. Although it may seem minor to you, the styling depicted as JetGo is technically the property of JetGo International who manufacture GPUs and are not related to JETGO Australia. You are correct that the JETGO Australia website shows the incorrect style, however this was set up long before I joined the company and is a major frustration for me getting it changed as it was set-up by a 3rd party. If you would like documentary proof email me and I can send you relevant material including current logo, e-Brochures etc pbredereck@jetgoaustralia.com.au cheers Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulBredereck (talk • contribs) 06:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East West Airlines (India)

The table decribing the relativley small fleet of the airline has encyclopaedic value. Not "Fanboy" fantasies as you might presume. discuss on talk page please. Trinidade (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The request was to use the talk page. Edit warring on edit summaries. There definitely is a better way to represent the history of EWI than blaantly deleting entire sectionsTrinidade (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to use talk pages, I just didn't see the need in this case; it was a good edit. I will wait for you to explain on the East West talk page why you have reverted an edit that corrected "Boeing B737", pluralised "Fokker F27" as was needed, added a full-stop as was needed, removed an un-needed capital letter, was in accordance with WP:ORDINAL and removed a table that, by consensus, does not belong in any airline article. When you have something more than "Don't remove an entire Section (which is not what I did - the Fleet section is still there) and explain the importance of going against long-standing consensus for this one article, then I might join the discussion. It takes two to edit war; I will not respond further here. YSSYguy (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Good" bits of your edit was not the issue, the removal of historical details thanks to removal of the table was. Anyways, Happy editing. Trinidade (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]