CHANGES for List of active military aircraft of the Philippines
I added sub-sections for air force planes so that it can be easily seen how each aircraft can be grouped together, copying that of what was done in "List of aircraft of the Royal Thai Air Force". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israformales (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for help
Dear colleague,
I have noticed your interest in the Eugene Bullard article and would like to thank you for your recent improvements to the general layout and style. I am done researching his incredible life and would like to ask you to kindly look it over in your spare time. With best regards, Murus. —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JETGO Australia 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.
Not sure whats going on here YSSYguy, the article name was changed without much evidence the logo used is not from the airline and now it has been taken to AfD. I would respect your view as being a bit closer (in miles) on this, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of notability I think it's marginal, but I have seen articles survive AfDs with less coverage than this - the Dubbo mayor's report is basically worthless, but the Courier Mail is a capital city metropolitan daily. I didn't twig that the logo was wrong; as for the move, have you seen Ktr101's Talk page and User talk:PaulBredereck? YSSYguy (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, all pretty strange that somebdy from the airline wants to change wikipedia but cant change the companies own website, when I searched the trademark register no sign that any of the formats has actually been registered but I have just looked again and an application has been lodged on 10 July 2013 for the use of "JETGO" by Jetgo Australia Holdings Pty Ltd for use in "airline bookings and airline transportation services". That said the application is for use of the word I dont think the format is part of the application. Think I will just revert my changes and ignore it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Panzer 68, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oerlikon (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.
I saw that you have delete the english articel about the Brückenpanzer and re directionet to the Panzer 68 Page. you hahe also deletet my link to the german WP page about the Brückenpanzer 68. Now we have some interlaunguage difficultis. If I got from the German Brückenpanzer Page to the english version I come to the Panzer 68 page, if I switch back to german I will be lead to the German Panzer 68 page and not to the german Brückenpanzer page. Is it possibel (i don't know if such a tool exist) that a section of a page (in this case about the Brückenpanzer 68 lead to a othe page in German, to the Brückennpanzer68 page and not like the restof it to the Panzer 68 page). Ithink if some one is interestet in it its good if he can finde the way to it straight away , because the german page has a few informations more about it as now can be found on the english Panzer 68 page.
Because now the article Brückenpanzer 68 dosen't exist anymore I add a picture of it in the Gallery. You had deleted the picture of the target tank because of its bad qualety, unfortunatly I didn't found a better one. With the deleting was also the link to its page gone. BTW Was it not some waste of time, if you asked me to rewwrite some of the text into better inglisg (words you told who i should use) and after this deleting the page?
Please understand this just as questions and opinien of me and not as criticism on you or your work.
FFA P-16 (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Same problem with the Zielpanzer 68, from german wikipedia you come to the english page Panzer 68 (not to to the page Zielpanzer,, going back to german you come to Panzer 68 and not back to Zielpanzer 68.
FFA P-16 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am in some doubt of deleting the pages of this versions of the Panzer 68, and put them just as one or two sentens into the Panzer 68 page, I think too much informations get lost in this way. I think its not a good idea to do this just because it is that way in other pages about other tanks, would it not bee better if it would go the other way araound.. thinking about if by other pages about tanks it would be usefull to crate own pages for some of the supversion. The Main Battle Tank Panzer 68 and the 35 mm Flab Panzer B22L saher the same substructur, but an battle Tank and an Anti aircraft vehicle are two differend classes of military hardware. FFA P-16 (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The inter-language difficulties do not exist, as the German and English WPs do not have the same content; zum beispiel as I have noted in the past the articles for Herbert Gronemeyer and the RAAF are not the same in the two projects, nor is the German article on the Centurion Tank as large as the English article (only one-sixth the size, although I see it has a similar format, mentioning variants only very briefly). I hadn't thought about redirecting (not deleting) the page when I wrote the comments on your Talk page, and I checked other articles about tanks first. I think your edits were not "wasted"; your English (as your comment above demonstrates) is not great and I used words you wrote on that article only as an example - which you did not do a good job of following anyway, as this edit of yours only made some of the changes I had suggested. YSSYguy (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have not inderstoud what i was trying to say,: now we have the problem if you choose on german wikipedia one of this pages for example about the target tank to go to the english version you come to the Panzer68 page (because the Targettank 68 page in engish is no more shown). But there it si now not possibel to get to the german version about the target tank 68. this conection is now lost. i don't see what this size have to do with Grönemeyer and so one, its that informations get lost . I made the crorrections as you said (as good as i could9 so for what have we done this if the articel now is no more shown? And I did it like you said but you haven't send me other corrections.how can you say i have not done a good job if you don't say what is to do, for me much things sounds right and you say it isn't right, if i would have gone one i would have spendet time and after you say it is still not right. And what's this with the talk page again, i told you i don't spend time (also in german wikipedia) to made it looking nice, its just a talk page and i use to replay as fast as possibel. please don't get angry if i say for my feeling you are going a little to fast with "downsizing" this articels.
FFA P-16 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that I just trye to say my point my ideas and doubt, so that you know my opinien ideas , please don't understand such things not as attack on you, i d like to say things straight and might i use sometimes words who a native english speaking person would say in a differend way. In the end we sahre all the same goal: that everyon can find on wikipedia informations he is searching. Please be also patience with me apart from wikipedia is the family live, friends and the job. And I know at YSSY 32C° is a cold breeze but at LSMD is this a hot summer, so spending all day long on the computer would be a wast of suntime. So have a cool drink. FFA P-16 (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also den, let me say first that I do not consider any of your comments to be a personal attack, so there is nothing to worry about. Next, vielleicht the German WP shouldn't have six different articles about a tank and its specialist versions either. But my point was, just because the German WP has artikel A, doesn't mean that the English WP has to have article A, or that if en:WP does have article A, it must be the same as artikel A. Look at it this way: what you want is the same as having an article for Toyota Corolla and another one for Toyota Corolla Seca and another for Toyota Corolla Altis. My comment about your English was because of this comment on your Talk page, in which I offered the opinion that you were writing English to German grammar rules and I wrote in English the word order is "the storage beam is mounted between the two tracking beams". Where in German one would write "[on the arm of the bridge launcher mechanism] wurde eine [radioantenna removed]", it would be better to say "a radio antenna...was removed from the arm of the bridge launcher mechanism". You changed the first sentence, but not the second. YSSYguy (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, O.K now I understand what you are saying because of the talkpage.
I understand your example about the Toyota Corolla, I agree that if it would give like by the Toyota Corolla from the Panzer 68 every year or every few years a new version, I think this could be on one single page not for every years version a new page. Also I agree if it would give differend versions of the (Main Battle) Panzer 68, with some "minor" differences like a PZ68D (with Diesel engine) a PZ68G (Gasoline engine) or Pz68 with a 105mm Canon and some with a 120mm Canon, and so one..allthis don't need a one page, just listen up on the Panzer 68 page would be O.K. Because this would be just differend Main Battle Tanks, differend versions of the Main Battle Tank. I think it is also correct to listen up (like it is now) the Zielpanzer , Brückenpanzer and so one. But I think there should be a one page of this Types, because they are no more Main Battle Tanks, they are Air-Defense systems, Pionier/construction vehicles (or how ever you like to name them9 the have a differend mission. if you have a look at the Fliegerabwehrpanzer 68 and Zielpanzer 68 this are massive changes of the basic Panzer 68 not only the tower is differend also the substructure is differend (Zielpanzer 68 the wheels &Track) (Fliegerabwehrpanzer 68 wide is 17cm more than PZ68). Because of the Mission, with placing the Fliegerabwehrpanzer 68 on the PZ68 page only it droped out of the list of Air-Defense Systems, but puting the PZ68 into the Air-Defense System list looks for me not suitable. Also you have to know thatfor eg. the Fliegerabwehrpanzer 68 is listet up in the french wikipedia page about swiss air defence systems, and as no page about it exist in the french WP , the link is guidet to the english WP, but now they end up at the english Pz68 page and not on the Fliegerabwehrpanzer 68 page.
We both knew the B-707, the KC-135 Stratotanker, RC-135, the E-3 Sentry, the E-8 Joint STARS, all of them are based on the B-707.
So it is right to listen them on the B-707 page. like all the differend versions of the B-707 like B707-220, 707-320B.
But they have all also theyer own Page.
I would go so far and say the differens (mission, equipment,..) between the KC-135 and the E-3 is like betwen the Panzer 68 and the Fliegerabwehrpanzer 68. I hope this helps you to understand why i had choosen this way and had not put all on the Panzer 68 page.
ByeFFA P-16 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here a "heavy" example: The Flakpanzer Gepard is based on the hull of the Leopard 1 (the Biber (Brückenlegepanzer),Bergepanzer 2 have one Pages on DE WP), also the just in prototypes build SP70Tankgun based on Leopard 1 (morde detailed on DE WP) or the ZSU-23-4 who is based on the GM chassis. The Panzerhaubitze 2000 is based on the Leopard 2 (you can finde one sub pages (not in english but in german and a other language) about the Bergepanzer Büffel [1], Kodiak (Panzer) [2],Panzerschnellbrücke 2 [3], Panzerschnellbrücke Leguan [4].
FFA P-16 (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. In the past i created / broght some swiss Military topics from the german wikipedia to the english wikipedia. Some got deleted for eg.Swiss Military Tarpaulins. So now before i spend a lot of time and asking steelpillow to help with the translation. i gone to ask you for your opinien if it is worth to made all this work or if there is the risk that the articel will be deleted. I have in mind to create the english version of the german articel woh is dealing with the personal equipment of the Swiss Military Soldiers, you can have a look at the german page = [5]]. Bye FFA P-16 (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to waste any more of my valuable time on you and your bad English. I think you will do whatever you want, regardless of my opinion. If you want to continue making bad contributions that do nothing to improve the English-language WP and create work for others cleaning up after you, then do so - just don't involve me any more. YSSYguy (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
website|accessdate=4 September 2013}}</ref> It was formed in 1972 as Air Bridge Carriers UK), acquired by the [[Hunting plc|Hunting group]] in the 1980s, rechristened to Hunting Cargo
There was a deletion discussion, but the closure was G5 - created by a banned user. That doesn't seem to be the case for the current iteration, so G4 would be unapplicable. (Unless it's a sock of the banned user, but if that's the case it's not obvious to me). WilyD08:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, good sirs I am no sock puppet. In fact I have an irrational fear of puppets of any kind! The article was written in good faith and despite searching I found no link to a previous AfD or deletion debate prior to creating it. Dfadden (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey congratulations on 12,000 edits. That represents a lot of work here building the encyclopedia. I am always impressed with the quality of work you do, as well! - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asked MB1 to review the situation after the text in question has been repeatedly inserted and he has semi-protected it for a month. I have started a discussion on the article talk page in case you would like to add any thoughts there. - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly puzzled by your rationale for the removal of the name of the hotel in this article, so thought you wouldn't mind clarifying. There doesn't seem to be a problem with the name of the hospitals or the name of the band being included, and all were mentioned in the reliable sources - why should the treatment be different between one and the other? --nonsenseferret01:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be any different, in that I wouldn't lose any sleep if the article didn't mention the name of the hospital or the band either - I just didn't think to remove them. Mentioning the hospitals by name instead of merely saying "[several] local hospitals" does nothing to increase my understanding of the subject, which is a helicopter crashing onto a much-loved local building and its effect on the city of Glasgow. Mentioning the name of the band is marginally useful, in that it demonstates it's a non-famous band that attracted a small audience to a small venue instead of say Pulp, Blur or Arcade Fire; but I think the article could get away with just saying "a local band" or something similar. At any rate, if you and Pigsonthewing want it included I'm not going to argue the point any further than what I have done here. YSSYguy (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:65-B80 VH-AEQ.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)11:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; there are several Users who have adopted a "shoot-on-sight" approach to this guy and his 200-odd socks. In the past I have sometimes undone his edits and reinstated the removed material myself. YSSYguy (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
In my opinion it doesn't pass the GNG, but I think if it went to AfD now there would be all sorts of people arguing that it does because of all the recent news reports about it. If I was putting it up for AfD, I'd wait a few months. Cheers. YSSYguy (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given the fact the article creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Ryan kirkpatrick, I think it should go to AfD now. YSSYguy (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
from [[Plovdiv Airport]] and [[Sofia Airport]] to European countries. Its main base iSofia Airport]].<ref name="FI">[[Flight International]] 27 March 2007</ref>
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ira P. Rothken 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:
[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], defending the rights of consumers including [[Craig Newmark]] (founder of [[Craigslist]],<ref>{{cite web| url =http://www.techfirm.com/home/consumers-fight-back-
Your photos added - looks good - have you flown hobart-strahan at all - I never ever took enough photos when i did a very long time ago... satusuro11:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
they were still using in the 80's but as far as i can tell it no longer is being used... creepy getting flights out of there, so close to the west coast range satusuro14:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know, I refuse to watch Mayday. If I want to find out about an accident, I'll read the report, not watch some exploitative entertainment masquerading as a documentary. If the episode spends a fair chunk of airtime talking about the murder, well that just proves my point really, because some hotheaded dickhead shooting someone else has got very little to do with what happened and why. YSSYguy (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FlyMontserrat
I read a source about the FlyMontserrat crash (FlyMontserrat Flight 107). It said that Montserrat lacks its own investigators, but it doesn't say the ECCAA lacks investigators. It describes the ECCAA as the authority relevant to Antigua, where the accident occurred.
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I looked at your edits and have no problems with what you've done; I am actually of the opinion that the article shouldn't exist at all. YSSYguy (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minigun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convert (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.
I would like to draw your attention to this edit as a reference. I would like to know on what basis are you removing the details of Malaysian search and rescue aircraft and vessels. I do not understand why the details for other countries, such as Singapore, Australia, China, Philippines and United States, are allowed while the details for Malaysian search and rescue aircraft and vessels are considered as "unnecessary and unhelpful". These details clearly specify what each country has mobilized in response to the incident. In short, either you remove them all, or you allow them all. Only removing the details of Malaysian search and rescue aircraft and vessels seemed to be a double-standard practice. Please drop me a reply as soon as possible. In the meantime, I shall restore the details for consistency with the rest of the articles. I hope that we will be able to discuss this out and avoid edit-warring between us. Cheers. --Mark Chung (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well remove the others then. There has been such a fucking frenzy of editing on that article (more than two thousand edits in the last 36 hours or so) that every edit I have made has taken three or four attempts because of edit conflicts; so I haven't even tried to make all the changes I think need to be made - just the bigger stuff. I removed the "details" because they weren't detailed. What type of Agusta helicopters were they? What type of Bombardier aircraft were they? What type of King Air was it (WP has two articles - Beechcraft King Air and Beechcraft Super King Air - covering Model 90, 100, 200 and 300)? I have a fairly good idea of the answers to those questions, but that would be a guess and WP:OR. When I read an article I ask myself "Does this information help me understand the subject?" What you want to put back in does not help to understanding. Someone clicks on the link on Agusta, they get an article about the manufacturer; they are left not being any further informed, because the MH370 article already says they're helicopters. YSSYguy (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. The details of those ambiguous aircraft are below:
I hope this removes the ambiguity. Regarding your concern on the aspect of "whether readers are further informed about this incident", I suppose this also applies to an overwhelming majority of the links present in the article. For example, Paragraph 2 stated that "Flight 370 departed Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,..." - by clicking on the Kuala Lumpur link, are you "further informed about this incident" in any way? I believe you'll end up digging through the geography, economy, demographics and culture in Kuala Lumpur. Does this mean the link /sentence / paragraph itself has to be removed? I doubt so. I wonder if you would agree to the opinion that given the required information, it would do little harm leaving the details in the article. In short - given the necessary information above, do you think that all details on all search and rescue aircraft and vessels should be removed? (Not to mention it's gonna be a huge restructuring project). --Mark Chung (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A cheeseburger for you!
Sorry about the mix-up, and thanks for catching it. The coffee is much appreciated, I could certainly use some. If you're still in the Sydney area, I recon it may be around lunchtime for you. So, cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, but it is time for a morning smoko (as tea/coffee breaks are called in this part of the world), so a cheeseburger will go down a treat, Num Num Num. Cheers again YSSYguy (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hello. what kind of a question is “what constitutes mostly” when it’s known that the VAST MAJORITY of passengers were Chinese?? Don’t disrespect valid edits and mods for “I don’t like” reasons.
Also, you don’t own article, just because you’re into “aviation”. This “15 nationalities” thing can be a bit misleading or unclear in the opening, when the vast majority were Chinese. That’s just a fact. No valid reason to undo...
Also, even if you had a little point about the wording order...the point is to re-word rather than revert is WP policy and recommendation. I fixed awkward wording.....Gabby Merger (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop throwing around vague terms like "mostly" and "vast majority" and everything will be fine. The words have different meanings for different people according to personal criteria, therefore they are effectively meaningless and thus pointless. It's nothing at all to do with "I don't like". YSSYguy (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you had a little bit of a point about how it was worded, in that order, that being that "most of the nationalities" were Chinese. You're correct that technically it's not stated accurately in that sense. But it should be noted (IMO, and in the opinion of others) that in the lede or in the first paragraph of article, it should be made clear that the vast majority of passengers on board that airplane were Chinese. Only saying "15 nationalities" gives the (false) impression that it was spread out somewhat evenly, when that's not even close to the case. It was not just 51% who were Chinese, but a big majority. But something like 70%. That would warrant "mostly"...especially when that's the term I heard on broadcast news many times now. "Mostly Chinese"...etc. Hence also why the Chinese government is very upset about this. Stands to reason since so many of the passengers were Chinese. That was my only point...and it was good-faith, valid, and accurate. And as I said, I fixed the awkward wording that you had a point about. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have now used "most", "vast majority", "majority" and "big majority" for the same number of people, so let me ask a question: what percentage do I think constitutes a big majority? It is a question you cannot answer, because what I think is a big majority is likely to be different to what you think is a big majority. Anyway it stayed in the article for sixteen hours before someone else removed it, so kudos to you for your helpful edit. YSSYguy (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flight 370
Going off of that, they changed their livery a couple of years ago, but now is not the time to search casually, since everything is conspiracy-related. I'll check later today to see more in depth, but that is definitely an old livery on the plane. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, the latest image I found was from January. Unless the aircraft went in for a C-check or repaint between January and 23 February when it had its last hangar visit (an A-check), it wasn't repainted (and the fact of the 23 February A-check pretty-much rules out the C-check, and as airlines don't normally pull aircraft out of service just to repaint them, that pretty-much rules out the repaint as well). Second, it does not matter at all if it was in the old MAS scheme or the new. It takes year and years for aircraft in a fleet to cycle through C-Checks and get repainted. As of today, Qantas aircraft wear three different paint schemes - the scheme introduced with the A380, the scheme introduced in about 2005, and the scheme previous to that. Third, the material makes absolutely no difference to a reader's understanding of the subject, which is "what happened to the aircraft". YSSYguy (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, there is a policy somewhere about flags in articles and their overuse, but specifically flags have been added many times to this article and have been removed just as many times by various people. The country names have always been in bold. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
your edit here, where you have changed Indian air force aircraft to C-130 Hercules from C-130J Super Hercules. India does not operate the Hercules, but the Super Hercules. As far as i know, both aircraft are different (hence separate wiki-articles) and are only similar in external appearance. It is confusing to me why you have reverted to list an aircraft that India does not operate. Any explanation would be helpful. Thanks! :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib21:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there are eleven different Wikipedia articles about Hercules variants, which is not to say there are eleven different types of Hercules - they all have the same basic airframe. I know the differences between an H-model and a J-model, and I presume you know the differences; but does someone not knowledgeable about aircraft know the difference, or even care? How about you ask yourself this question: "Does the difference matter to the subject, which is the search for a missing Boeing 777?" Just suppose there is a Wikipedia article about a person missing in the Australian outback and there are news reports about the search for this person. One report says the National Parks Service has sent a team driving a 1997-model Toyota Landcruiser, while another says the police force has sent a team driving a 2008 Toyota Landcruiser Prado. Does it really make any difference to the facts of the case that one is a Landcruiser and one is an upgraded and more modern Landcruiser Prado, with different systems and a different engine and gearbox? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I did ask myself this question, and hence my query. I know that the Indian air force does not use the C-130 Hercules, so i knew that particular statement was factually incorrect. So may a lot of people. Why do you want to dumb it down when a simple "C-130J" would be exactly accurate and not at all confusing. Regrading the difference between car models, I believe we should keep our info as accurate as possible. If it is a 2008 model, then let us say it that way. I see no problem in putting accurate info here, while I can see a lot of reasons why we should not deliberately add incorrect/dumbed-down info. Anir1uph | talk | contrib12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
India does use the C-130 Hercules; it uses the J-model, built on the same production line in Marietta, Georgia as the A, B, D, E, H and K models (plus all the other models that I can't remember off the top of my head). The C-130 has been in continuous production for over 50 years, including J-model production. YSSYguy (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's "dumbing down", it's a matter of not getting hung up on the unimportant stuff while focussing on the stuff that is important. There are more than a few Users who think that whole section should be removed and have the article just say that x number of ships and y aircraft from z nations were engaged in the search. YSSYguy (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the initial Hercules model is no longer in production. But if a lot of editors feel that way, then I will drop my case. Before writing to you, I had gone through the talk page, and found no such ongoing discussion regarding my initial query there. May be I missed it. Cheers! Anir1uph | talk | contrib13:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Old prod full
When removing the "proposed deletion" templates from articles, please add {{old prod full}} to the article's talk page. This alerts future editors that the article is now ineligible to be "prodded" in the future. Thanks. I have already done son with Talk:Tomnod. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, I then found that you had already contested the proposal for deletion, only after I made the above post to User talk:TheAirplaneGuy. Since he may delete or archive this post at any time, I took the liberty of copying the proposal for deletion / contested template to a new section on the Tomnod talk page, followed by an edited version on what I posted to TheAirplaneGuy's talk page ~ for the purposes of record, in case of future proposals for deletion. I was tempted to delete the proposal for deletion / contested template from the top of the Tomnod talk page, but I am not sure if that would violate any of the Wikipedia's copious rules. In the meantime, this template appears twice on the talk page, as described. Your take on this? Enquire (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I will only make a general comment here; anyone can remove a PROD tag from any article. If an article is nominated for Speedy Deletion, then the creator cannot remove the Speedy tag (this article would be a grey area, as you are the creator of a redirect which someone else turned into an article). Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Luxair Flight 9642 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.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
actions resulted in severe loss of airspeed due to the accidental selection of the propellers into [[Propeller (aircraft)#Propeller control|reverse pitch (reverse pitch is normally only used to slow
Reverted back your latest change in "Droops" article
Hi, hope you don't mind I undid your good faith change to the Droops wikiarticle, and restored the image about the Trident 2 wing. If you read carefully the article, it says that "Early variants of the Hawker Siddeley Trident had two droops on the outboard of each wing..."; more clarity is given in the Flight International issue of 29 June 1972, p.933 which explicitly mentions the Trident 1 with this droops arrangement. If you have evidence that the Trident 2 didn't have droops, please provide it and then feel free to remove the picture again. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wrote the article so those words are mine and I read that source at the time. I researched the article thoroughly, and chose my words on the basis that the Trident 2 and subsequent had slats instead of droops, and thinking it didn't matter for the purposes of the droops article to be more specific than "early variants". Anyway, there is this accident report and the Staines accident report, both of which state that the Trident 2 had slats (the Staines report explicitly stating on PDF page 15 that the Trident 2 has slats in lieu of droops). YSSYguy (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's enough evidence for me! Thanks for the clarification; this pic is not relevant then. BTW, I think this is a neat brief article. Regards, DPdH (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I created it because I was reading the article about the Staines crash and it was mentioning droops, but nowhere there or in the Trident article did it say what droops are. YSSYguy (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi YSSY. In two edits on 13 April you deleted a substantial amount of text from this article - see the diff. The only explanation you gave for all this deletion was "copy edit". A large part of the deletion was material previously included in Notes. Did you find some of the information in the Notes to be incorrect? If so, I would like to know what the errors were.
I am in favour of copy editing but I am not of the view that wholesale deletion of information, all properly citing reliable published sources, can be considered to be copy editing. Please let me know what your objections were, and why such a large amount of properly sourced information has been erased in the interests of copy editing. Thanks. Dolphin(t)13:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is well-cited, which given the standard of what can be found elsewhere on WP is something you should be really chuffed about. I did find one thing that wasn't correct (one of the findings of Justice Philp, which was misreported in one of the newspapers used as a source but properly reported in the other) and changed it; but the info in the notes I removed was not incorrect, just not relevant or I thought it could just as easily written into the main body of the text to improve narrative flow for a reader. The names and ranks of the two RAAF aircraft Fitters is in no way helpful in understanding the subject of the article, which is the crash of an aircraft caused by the failure of its wing. Ditto for the information on the propellors. The identities of the four Stinsons when they were in AoA service does not aid to understanding of the crash either. White succeeding Drakeford is also irrelevant for the purposes of this article - anyone wanting more info about White can click on the WL for his name. CAC Mustangs being known as CA-18 Mk.21s etc. is also irrelevant to the subject. I also removed one note that was a word-for-word repetition of another note. My overall opinion was that the info, while sourced, was unnecessary trivia in terms of the article's subject. YSSYguy (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply. I will re-visit the article in the weeks ahead. I will probably re-work some of the information you found irrelevant and trivial, and restore it to the article. Dolphin(t)13:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have used CSD to have articles deleted dozens and dozens of times, mostly about aviation companies very similar to de Bruin Air. Nowhere is it said - at least not that I can find - that third-party sources negate the use of a Speedy Deletion tag; and I have never been told by an admin before that this is a criterion to not tag an article for Speedy Deletion. If you coud point me to where this I said, I'd be grateful.
I created an article about de Bruin Air in early 2010, which I subsequently had speedily deleted in 2012 after I realised that there were no credible claims to notability. It had the exact same third-party references in it, which were - and still are - the only non-directory mentions of the company I could find, these being two stories by the ABC's Mt Gambier bureau (in other words, local coverage only, and the reason why I realised WP's notability requirements were not met). Even the pilots' forum PPRuNe only mentions the company once that I can find, and that is inclusion in a list of South Australian air operators. Anyway, you have PRODded the article, so we shall see in five or six days time whether it will go to AfD. YSSYguy (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A7 is for "no indication of importance". An element of that is the coverage in third party sources. I found the content of at least 2 of the articles to meet the requirements. It was extremely weak, hence he conversion to a PROD rather than flat-out decline, but it was at least a valid indication the panda ₯’09:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Buddha Air 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:
Finance Corporation]] allowed the company to expand further by purchasing two [ATR 42]] aircraft. Buddha Air took delivery of its first 70-seat [[ATR 72]] in June 2010. The name of the
If you look at the names on the Category page, they are people like Lilienthal, the Wrights, Curtiss, Santos-Dumont and Sikorsky. My opinion is that Aaron is a guy who modified a helicopter to extend the envelope a bit; saying he's a pioneer is like saying the guy who invented the Lomcevak is a pioneer. Feel free to ask for others' opinions at the Aviation Wikiproject though. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I also wouldn't put him in the subset you listed. (I don't expect he would either.) But the category heading mentioned achievements "up to the present", so I though the aerobatic enabling modifications, and first/only pilot so FAA certified might be sufficient. I asked, to make sure that the reasons I had used had not been inadequately described in the article. —MJBurrage(T•C)22:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page was taking absolutely ages to load, and when it did, there were still three refs in that section! I've now reverted my repeat edit. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you deleted a lot of the history section on the page the ref from 3rd level NZ does have a lot of historical information and should stay in. I can't see why so called blogs can't be used as reference on the page you provided for your reason for it to be removed. If you look at the refs that I provided there is a lot of research from old news articles of the early flights at Oamaru. All that info you have now deleted is it for not having the right kind of ref or you just don't want it there? CHCBOY (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, you seem not to understand that Wikipedia policy demands that everything is sourced from reliable sources, and a blog is not a reliable source. I can start a blog and write about what I have seen, heard, read and be told about commuter airlines in Australia over the last 40-odd years, but there's no guarantee that it's accurate is there? Then along comes someone and reads my blog, then thinks "gee that's interesting, I'll put that info in a Wikipedia article"; trouble is, we can't do that. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CHCBOY: Replying here to keep the conversation in one place. CHCBOY, you could email the blog author and ask where he gets his information from. If it's from a published source, you could check that source, perhaps using an interlibrary loan, and then quote that.
Blogs are sometimes acceptable as references, when the blog author is a recognised authority on the subject. That doesn't appear to be the case here, but since the information does not relate to a living person, and is not as far as I can see controversial, perhaps the material could be tagged as needing a better source (using {{better source}}) and remain in the article? YSSYguy is certainly within his rights to remove it, but in practice not everything unsourced gets removed from Wikipedia.-gadfium02:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will look into it and to search for new refs from the author as I feel that the history info provided will be of use to the public who may research in the future.CHCBOY (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to just do what you are supposed to and add material based on reliable sources, there would be no problem. To give one example, a newspaper article from 6 March cannot be referencing something that happened four days later, so I removed that piece of information. YSSYguy (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isle of Man Examiner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tabloid (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.
Stop please to redirection this Article, we have talkt about this allready in the past.
The difference betwen this one and the Pz68 is too big.
Also it is dissapointing and conspicuous, that you do tied this in several articel who deal with swiss military hardware.
Exampels that a redirection is not needet: B-707, the KC-135 Stratotanker, RC-135, the E-3 Sentry, the E-8 Joint STARS, all of them are based on the B-707.
So it is right to listen them on the B-707 page. like all the differend versions of the B-707 like B707-220, 707-320B.
But they have all also theyer own Page.
I would go so far and say the differens (mission, equipment,..) between the KC-135 and the E-3 is like betwen the Panzer 68 and the Fliegerabwehrpanzer 68. I hope this helps you to understand why i had choosen this way and had not put all on the Panzer 68 page.
And here a "heavy" example: The Flakpanzer Gepard is based on the hull of the Leopard 1 (the Biber (Brückenlegepanzer),Bergepanzer 2 have one Pages on DE WP), also the just in prototypes build SP70Tankgun based on Leopard 1 (morde detailed on DE WP) or the ZSU-23-4 who is based on the GM chassis. The Panzerhaubitze 2000 is based on the Leopard 2 (you can finde one sub pages (not in english but in german and a other language) about the Bergepanzer Büffel [7], Kodiak (Panzer) [8],Panzerschnellbrücke 2 [9], Panzerschnellbrücke Leguan [10].
All of those different 707-variant articles are too big for their information to be contained in the 707 article itself. The Zielfahrzeug 68 article is four sentences and a shit-quality image; it is an unnecessary content fork that does not need a separate article. You say "informations get lost", what information is in the Zielfahrzeug 68 article that is not in the Panzer 68 article? What information is lost? YSSYguy (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case we would also only need the page about theM48 Patton and the M67 Flame Thrower Tank could be delted, it would be the same amount of informations who get lost. And about the picture, i knew its not very good but you can bring in a better picture of it at any time (or be patience, someone will upolad a better pic). Its annoying that you so often try to throw out wikipedia raticels who are about swiss military hardware.
FFA P-16 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer the question; what information is lost? Also, your example shows why your argument is wrong. The M48 was manufactured for the Army. The M67 was manufactured at the same time - it was not a conversion of retired M48s - and was built for the Marine Corps. The M48 article is very large, the Panzer 68 article is small. The Zielfahrzeug 68 was a conversion of the Panzer 68, after the 68s had been decommissioned. The specialist versions of the M48 - the bridge laying and dozer versions etc. - do not have separate articles. The Magach article covers conversions of both the M48 and M60, so that is also a different situation. YSSYguy (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop it!
It is based on the Pz68 but it is a heavy modification, it has a differend prupose. I am working on it to get abetter picture of it, but i have also a job to do so this need time.You are usualy only in aviatic topics activ (I have respect for your work ther) but now you go to tank topics but only to this what has to do with swiss tanks, tanks you did not know much about,this is straing that you not work on for eg. Us Tank articles oder so one. With your behavoir in the past by swiss aviatic topics and now with your behavoir in topics about swiss tanks i can not agree with your point in this case. I think its better if you don't get activ in topics about swiss military hardware.
FFA P-16 (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You still did not answer the question; what information is lost? I don't need to know anything about Swiss tanks to see that this does not need a separate article. Your "reason" is, 'this should have a separate article because I think it should', because however big the differences are, the article is four sentences and the parent article has the same information. You think it's better if I don't get active in topics about Swiss military hardware; I think it's better if you don't try to write in English, I can only understand half of your last message. YSSYguy (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a big differend to the Pz68. And your second statement is very rassistic. I knew i have mistakes in my english writting but if you don't understand my writing its your problem, my friends in russia, canada , frenchpart of switzerland and so one have no problem to understand me. Be honst you are usualy activ in aviactic topics (and you make there a very good job) but here you go only for the articels about swiss tanks i have not seen on work of you on other articles about other nations tanks. Also i put in a new potho of it in better qualety. I realy wold be happy if we could worktogether not against each others.
FFA P-16 (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East Air, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sharjah (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.
you deleted some work i did to aircaft pages ref addtion if it was on dislpay because it was not referanced... how do you make a ref? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westca (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a protocol that dictates small-scale incidents like VA Flight 474 require a stub article to be mentioned in the template? I don't think it serves any purpose to exclude fatal incidents from the template for the sole reason of not having a standard article. I warrants mention, in my opinion, as 30 people were killed but the crash itself does not require an article when it can simply be placed within the article of its cause (Tropical Storm Forrest). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zielfahrzeug 68
Hello again. I had added more informations to the Zielfahrzeug 68. Look I stil think it is not right to redirect this page. It is not just a simple modification of a Panzer 68, It has a differen tower, the whole surface ids differend, it has the wheels and traks from Panzer 61 not from Panzer 68. Its right that the differend versions of the battle tank Panzer 68 doesn't need a own page, but this is a far more differend vehicel. I have a other question, you work usualy in aviatic topics (and as I said I have respect for this work you do) but as I can see the only articel you "work" on in miltary (ground) vehicles ist this Zielfahrzeug 68, I see no work from you on other Tank related articels. Also there are hunderts of pages about miltary vehicles, containig fewer informations than this on. Why is it that a military Tractor has his own page with just 6 sentes. the tractor it self is just a 360° turned Main battle Tank with no tower annd a truck cabin built on it. Why do you dont redirect such pages? Sorry i still see things differend and think the Zielfahrzeug 68 is its one page worh. I am afraid you still don't agree. Pheraps a vote about this would help?
Best Regards
FFA P-16 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what part did you not understand of this?
So in this case its better if some one from the WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force who has to adjudicate, what is too detailed or not, not you and not me.
Hi! I saw your proposed edits (in your sandbox, via Google search) to the Bay Super V article after I'd done some rewriting to it. I like the research you've done, and was hoping it will be possible for one of us to incorporate some of these edits into the article in the near future. I'm particularly interested in linking to the Type Certificates which appear to still be held by the successor to Mitchell Aviation, indicating there's been no movement of Certificates since 1963.
Hello YSSYguy. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of T2 Design & Prototype, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. NW(Talk)04:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, it does look a bit less promotional since I removed the gallery of 20-odd images - all copyvios uploaded to Commons by the same User and now deleted - of products the company was involved in developing. Considering the Commons images as well and the lack of edits anywhere else, it's clear to me that the author's rationale for creating the article was to promote the company. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could have gone either way on it. I think AFD will take care of it appropriately; if no one comments after a week, we can delete it then. NW(Talk)05:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -well I would like to question your assertion that I am using Wiki as a soapbox. I have re-edited my content on Alan Joyce's page and it is totally factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWolf75 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gulfstream G650
You reverted my addition of takeoff and landing distances. Got a good reason for doing that? The info is straight from the Gulfsteam spec sheet, totally verifiable.Textorus (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cited or not, the info is not included in other WP articles about aircraft, which may have something to do with the "SL ,MW, ISA" that followed - I know what the letters mean and you know what they mean, but that doesn't necessarily hold for all readers. Plus, we then open the "is that the balanced-field length" and the "is that to clear a 50-foot obstacle" cans of worms. In other words, there are too many possible qualifiers for them to be valid specs that can be compared to other types, and coming from Gulfstream they are more likely to be "marketing specs". YSSYguy (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I be trying to learn the english by doing the good faith of edits, as I knowing/learn english as the secondary language. Please be excusing for my bad english, I am learn a new language and it no easy too. Wikipedia should be of more welcome toward the learner of english language.Johnfromchina2015 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how hard it is to learn English and your need to get better at it, but Wikipedia is not the right place to do it. If you keep editing, your edits will be undone and your Wikipedia account may be blocked as well. YSSYguy (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's context here that I don't have, but what you say above does not sound like the Wikipedia spirit to me. If you see an edit in poor English, but you can tell what it is meant to say, you should just fix it. And if you don't have time, you should leave it for someone else to fix, as opposed to reversing the entire contribution. Johnfromchina's paragraph above is an example of rather poor, but fully understandable English, and if I saw such a thing in a article, I would just fix it. We ought to welcome even imperfect contributions. I guess I question whether anyone ever actually gets blocked for not knowing enough English. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of his edits was to change "FlySafair proposes to open a second base, in Johannesburg, offering services to Port Elizabeth and George." to "FlySafair proposing to open in a second base, in Johannesburg, offering services to Port Elizabeth and George with the expansion mode in effect of airline." It seems to me that the best way to render what he is trying to say into correct English, is to undo his changes and reinstate what was already there - after all, it was in correct English to begin with. His stated intent in editing WP is to improve his English, not to improve the encyclopaedia; and if his edits, while not vandalism, are indistinguishable from vandalism, then I think it's not impossible for a block to be put in place by someone. I am a firm supporter of the notion that competence is required. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your edit and that just learning English is not an appropriate use of a Wikipedia edit. Given this person's skill with English, though, I wonder if he really meant that. (But I can imagine learning English being a by-product of making imperfect bold improvements and being corrected by other editors - my own English has improved that way). Anyway, we seem to be on the same page; the words above just struck me as odd when I read them alone. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed that it be deleted, but if the article is deleted, it will be by someone else. For the subject of an article to be notable in the Wikipedia sense, it has to receive significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources that have no connection with the subject. So far all the article has is the company's own website (which does not qualify as a source because it has a connection with the subject) and a listing on an airliner fleet database - which does not qualify because it is a database listing and is not in-depth coverage. Basically all that can be shown is that the company exists, and mere existence is not the same as notability. Perhaps you could find some Iranian sources - it doesn't matter if they are in Farsi. Note that blogs, youtube Facebook etc. are not reliable sources, as anybody could write anything they want and the information may not be true. I know you told me not to, but see WP:RS for more information. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Should of"
How nice to find another warrior against "should of"! I used to regularly patrol for this and related horrors, and also "is been" etc: inspired by the recent media coverage of User:Giraffedata's campaign against "comprised of", I think I'll take it up again. PamD16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words PamD. Other pet hates of mine include:
"they" and "their" to describe a company instead of "it" and "its"
"aircrafts" as the plural of "aircraft"
"plane" instead of "aircraft"
"there" instead of "their"
"where" instead of "were"
Recently I have also made quite a few edits where I have fixed instances of "an" followed by a word beginning with a consonant. I fixed all of the cases of "an civil" and "an civilian" I could find and I have also checked all country names starting with 'B' and 'C'. Someone had created more than 100 stubs about Brazilian football players with the phrase "an Brazilian". Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Västerås Flight museum / Västerås Flygmuseum
Hello YSSYguy ! Was it You who suggested to delete the Västerås Flygmuseum (originally labeled by me as "Västerås Fligh museum" ? If so, I'm sorry to made a formal error, by just remove Your suggestion. I was at the time absolutely certain that it was done by "a dear old stalker of me". If You still believe the article to be deleted, then I will not remove the suggestion again. However I see it as a stub, which can be expanded - for instance with a list of all the airplanes, and which of them that are flyable etc. I cannot be entirelly certain, but I think Västerås Flygmuseum lackes parallells in Sweden, if not entire Scandinavia. And the simulator part is growing, as more and more people has become interested in virtual flight, through Microsoft's last 3-4 simulators (the very last, after FLX, appear to be something else though.) My stalker made some "cleaning up" before You suggested deletion, and removed imperative matters such as most of the aircraft are flyable - and are used not only Sunday 11-16. The members and owners (if they differ, I don't know) can of cource use his own airplane whenever he or she likes. Once again, I'm sorry. You can just add the deletion proposal again, if You think the presumably largest flight museum (wich actually is much more) in Scandinavia lackes encyclopedical value, You have of course that right to do so. I shopuld have read the history file better. Sorry again Boeing720 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once the PROD tag has been removed, it cannot be nominated again, except through an AfD process. You haven't demonstrated notability yet, because all you have used for sources is the Museum's own website. You need to have newspaper or magazine articles about the museum to show notability. Looking at what was done by your 'stalker', they look like legitimate and proper edits to fix up what needed to be fixed - I would have made similar edits myself. YSSYguy (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But You do not stalk me. Thats a difference. He removed importaint facts about how and when the museum is opened, it's atleast all Sundays, but also after appointments. (stated at the same side, so my stalker presumably had read it, but still removed it.) Which WP:guide states that only a single webbsite isn't sufficient for a stub article ? There are plenty films from the museum at YouTube though. Boeing720 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not meant to be that detailed, it is an encyclopaedia, not a tourist guide. An article should give an overview of the subject, not such detailed information as address or telephone number, email address and such, therefore the removal of the opening times is in my opinion proper. Second, you need to read the general Notability guidelines. It is probably more important that a small article has at least one external source, discussing the subject in detail, than a large article - an organization's own website is certainly not enough to demonstrate Notability. If nobody else is writing about the museum, it isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Youtube doesn't count as a reliable source and cannot demonstrate notability either. You need to have a magazine or newspaper article - not a brief news report - about the museum; it doesn't have to be in English, but it must be an in-depth article, with more information than just a name, address and contact details. If such external sources cannot be found, the article will not survive. You also appear to have a conflict of interest, which can be hard to manage, as it is a requirement when editing WP to be neutral. I hope the links are helpful to you. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who has added phone numbers ? Not me. I have though seen occational articles with a webbsite included. This was the first time ever I did that, due to the stalker. You do not need to take it from scratch. I've been here for a few years and has an edit count of 3000+ only at English Wiki. And I'm 50 years old.
I have (after difficulties) now found one link from the Västerås City Hall (far too little), just like a location and a YouTube video (which cannot hurt, can it ?). But eventually I found a secondary source which tells the brief story about how and when the museum was founded in 1997, the airport was earlier infact the former Swedish Airforce base "F1 - Hasslö". I hope this is regarded as a reliable secondary source.Boeing720 (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot - there are more than 40 flyworthy and different airplanes of various sizes. Atleast for Scandinavia that is noteworthy. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Virginia Beach F/A-18 crash
Hi YSSYguy,
Concerning 2012 Virginia Beach F/A-18 crash. Instead of slapping a tag on it maybe you can help me clean it up. The "Revision history statistics" show no bugs. What do you want fixed? I can delete the Eyewitness accounts section is that the problem? Samf4u (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC) ·[reply]
He seems to be rather unhappy - he's hard at work editing his Talk page comments, to remove all of the politeness by the looks of it (and also changing the sense of some of his original comments as well). I'm thoroughly fed up with him, so a two-week block feels like a holiday. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of flight accidents in india, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Arab Airlines Flight 869. 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.
I was thinking we might get along because of similar interests but now you've insulted me. I'd rather work with you than against you to improve Wiki. It's not too late to fix this, or you might receive a helping of what you served. Samf4u (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was an attention-getter, so I have achieved that. Do what you like, dish out helpings or whatever, but if you are keen to "work with rather than against", go back to the article and format the references properly. I can see that you haven't been editing WP for very long, but if you haven't learned yet how to reference properly then it's about time you did. It also looks like you have done a fair bit of 'copying-and-pasting' from the accident report - that is lazy as far as I'm concerned, put it in your own words. I have formatted many of the refs already so you can see what is required, but I'm leaving it up to you to do the rest; at the end of the day, only you know where you got the information from, especially when you added at least one ref some time after you added the info it is purporting to cite. Do it or don't do it, I don't care; if you don't, it is just one more of the hundreds of thousands of poor-quality articles on Wikipedia. If you do it, it might become one of the tiny percentage of good articles on Wikipedia. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will learn how format references properly and fix the remaining ones and I'll work on my bad habit of copy-paste. Your devotion to WP is inspiring. We might just get along after all. Samf4u (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
