User talk:Aviationwikiflight

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

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


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

PROD
Hi!

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

Please familiarize yourself with Proposed deletion before using the mechanism.

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

The correct venue for most deletions is Articles for deletion.

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

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

Well, now you know.

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

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


 * I live in a country where I have to use a VPN to use the internet. There are some vpn connections that are IP banned so I have to use a certain connection to edit on wikipedia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could consider a temporary IP block exemption while the user puts through an email request for a permanent one per the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY? Daniel Case (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:deadline - we can wait for the request to come through. I will put the unblock request on hold. The results of IPECPROXY should take care of the rest, eh? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the current status of my block? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any thoughts here? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just what I've already posted. This user is a likely sock puppet using proxies.  If they want to be unblocked, they'd have to stop using proxies and show us their real IP address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have you read and attempted to resolve via WP:IPECPROXY? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to resolve it via WP:IPECPROXY but i haven't gotten a response. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem that I have as stated above is that using a VPN is the only way to use the internet. Some VPN connections work better than others so sometimes I do change the connections. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This is Ticket:2023101510001873 if you want to have a look? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have an OTRS account. I have no idea what the above (on-wiki) discussion is even about.  If this ticket is about asking for IPBE, the answer should be trivially easy.  Blocked editors don't need IPBE – it would do them no good.  If the ticket is about the block, it should be either on-wiki or at UTRS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Don't have (or want) OTRS/VRT. Perhaps you could unblock if you think it's warranted. On the other hand, we might need to just evaluate the non-sensitive information. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd love to unblock, but damn. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @NinjaRobotPirate: Do you have a master that you are connecting this account to? The CU data shows proxy use, but no strong overlap with another account. CU data makes the reason for using a VPN plausible. I am very tempted to unblock here. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The sock master is listed in the block log, on the user page, in the uw-block template, and in the unblock request itself. I don't really know why you're so convinced this is not a sock puppet if you're not even aware who the suspected master is.  But I'm getting a bit tired of being constantly pinged about this block, so do whatever you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you mind, just to clarify what I did wrong, what evidence do you have that ties my account to user Mattchatt20?
 * I am new to wikipedia so prior to me getting messaged about my PROD violation and copyright violation, I thought that what I was doing was right. I had read various guidelines but my knowledge on how to use and/or interpret them was limited. Obviously, know, I do understand that the violations that I commited were dumb.
 * But what I don't understand is that for the past few months, I have made numerous edits, some helpful, some controversial. For me, in my opinion, it would seem dumb and a waste of time to create an account, make edits to improve articles, some reverted for which I understand the reasons, just to throw it away because of these violations (if these were the reason for my block).
 * And just to add one more time, even though this makes me look guilty to you, I live in a country where using a VPN is needed, normal internet connection doesn't let me access google.
 * I just hope that I could go back to editing articles and improving them because seeing some articles that look in a "bad state" is just honestly annoying and sad.
 * Hope you have a nice day.
 * -Aviationwikiflight Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally out to sea. can you light me a beacon to see my way? accept/decline/other? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * NJP seems pretty confident here, but they also seem to be done with this. I'd say it's up to you. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Me!? Quelle horreur! --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There... now you don't have to make the decision, DFO. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for accepting the unblock request :).
 * Finally, I just have two questions;
 * Do I need to get an IP block exemption to continue editing on wikipedia?
 * And lastly, does the box stating that I've been indefinitely banned need to be removed or not? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the IP block exemption. You are now free to cleanup your talk page as you see fit. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the clarifications. Have a nice rest of your day. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You should email the checkusers for a WP:IPBE. checkuser-en-wp@undefinedwikipedia.org &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

1837 earthquake
Thanks for pointing out the lack of sourcing for that death toll. It's odd that the best information comes from Hawaii. I've found some evidence of deaths in Chile, but very few. Mikenorton (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Per WP:CRITERIA and WP:AVTITLE, the format of: Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash is way more recognizable than having Héðinsfjörður or Glitfaxi in the title.
 * To english speakers, I don't think Héðinsfjörður or Glitfaxi are commonly recognizable names. Using the format that I've put per WP:AVTITLE, we know the year, what airline was involved, we know the accident aircraft + what happened. The title of the two moved pages can easily be typed, they are more precise, it is consistent with other plane accident articles and there is just the right amount of sufficient information in the title for someone to understand what the article is about.
 * Per Collins Dictionary, the definiton of air crash is a a crash involving one or more aircraft so the use of the term "air crash" in the title is therefore incorrect. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right on the point with the term "air crash", that is a translation error on my part. The term "Plane crash" would be the correct one.
 * That said, both of these accidents get their notability from significant Icelandic sources where they are best known as Flugslysið í Héðinsfirði, which in english translates to The Héðinsfjörður plane crash, and Glitfaxaslysið which is probably best translated as The Glitfaxi accident. While I don't mind making minor descriptive changes, such as adding the year, what should not be changed is removing the location from title the Héðinsfjöður crash and the plane name from the Glitfaxi crash, as that is what they are known by.
 * Even WP:AVTITLE, which should be noted is neither an official Wikipedia guideline or policy and doesn't override anything in WP:COMMONNAME, does state that if the event has acquired a popular name, that name should be used. Alvaldi (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better then, to keep both titles like for example on the page of The Smolensk Air Disaster? For example we can either name the article with my format or your format, you choose, then on top of the infobox, we can insert both titles so:
 * The Héðinsfjörður plane crash
 * 1947 Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash
 * Glitfaxaslysið
 * 1951 Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash
 * Is this format acceptable? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objections having the "19## Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash" as a secondary title for those particular articles as long as the main title refers to what they are commonly known by. Generally, notable crashes in Iceland become known by the location where they happened but occasionally the name of the plane involved (though that seems to have been more common in the early years of flight in Iceland when there were fewer planes in the country). I did ask the creator of the Héðinsfjörður crash their opinion on this matter and they've started a discussion about it on Talk:1947 Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash so maybe it is better if we continue the discussion there. Alvaldi (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
Hi Aviationwikiflight! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

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

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


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

Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boeing 777X, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

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

SA de Transport Aérien Flight 730 and other articles
Per WP:BRD, I'm starting this discussion on your talk page where you'll see it. As far as your edit summary, Per the summary parameter: Brief summary of the occurrence. State the fate of the aircraft, if not obvious from the title (e.g. crashed, disappeared etc) and any relevant circumstances. Accident causes are often several and complex: they should be left for the article body. Cherry-picking some of them for the summary (e.g. pilot error) is likely to breach neutrality. See discussion., that edit was made unilaterally by on November 2, 2023, citing a discussion at Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence. As you can see, the only person even mentioning the removal of causes was Deeday-UK, so there is no history of a project consensus. This past February, when Deeday-UK was making changes to other articles similar to yours, I contacted them at their talk page User talk:Deeday-UK to challenge a similar edit that he had made and to ask where this "project consensus" that they were citing existed, and they only mentioned that template talk page. Another talk page watcher also joined in that conversation and stated their opinion that that discussion is not the basis of a consensus. If you think there's widespread support for the removal of accident causes from the infobox summary (I don't), then by all means start a discussion about it, but it should be at a place where people actually watch, like WP:AVIATION or something like that, not the talk page of a template that nobody looks at. I have removed that template help text that Deeday-UK added for now, and made a note at the template help document talk page. I also have pinged that user since I have been mentioning them here. Please self-revert those changes and start a discussion. I'd appreciate a ping when you do. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for pointing it out, I wasn't aware that this wasn't an official consensus.
 * I've started a discussion regarding this "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation" to see what's the general opinion on this matter at the talk page of WikiProject Aviation
 * And just one question, when you say:
 * Please self-revert those changes and start a discussion.
 * what do you mean by self-revert these changes? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've already started removing these unilateral and undiscussed summary changes. I would recommend seeking an official consensus before making such mass changes. Cutlass Ciera  23:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

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


 * In discussing articles for deletion (or other discussion types such as merge requests, split requests...), the original proposer can only cast one vote, which is their reasoning regarding a deletion proposal. The proposer can obviously still comment, they can reply to votes cast by other users but voting after they have opened a discussion is not allowed and since they are suggesting a deletion, repeating it should be avoided. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody casts any votes, they are discussions. It is common for example to see "Delete as nom" or similar, so that guide is not entirely accurate. CMD (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe stating "Delete as nom" could pass but, "the nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this." Replying or commenting is what should normally be done if you've already voted (whilst changing your vote is allowed). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the wikitiquette, and while there are a lot of things editors should do, that they should does not mean other editors are meant to police this at its strictest interpretation. CMD (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe not to the strictest but the user in question was repeatedly doing it across multiple discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * @Aviationwikiflight. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The "project consensus" that I'm referring to is on this discussion regarding as to whether the summary parameter in aircraft occurence infoboxes should contain summaries. Basically, a user with minimal consensus on the talk page decided to change the summary parameter to include "no causes" based on the fact that aviation accidents are usually complex and (over)simplifying the causes might be misleading. This change was recently reverted and I've started a discussion regarding this issue. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Khang To
Regarding your edit here:


 * Initial change (by me, as a result of an objection raised at FAC):.
 * Revert 1:.
 * Revert 2:.
 * Revert 3:.

That was why I left a notification about the policies about edit warring on that user's talk page, as suggested at Edit warring. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "Revert 1" cannot be considered a revert since they were adding something to the article and not reverting a revision to their preference.
 * "Revert 2" is a revert but the fact that it happened nearly a month later doesn't hold much weight.
 * "Revert 3" could be considered a revert since they are adding another image with a possibly incorrect tag but they're not restoring it to a previous version since it was a different image.
 * For it to be considered edit-warring, most of the time, the user would have to breach the three-revert rule. In other cases, the three-revert rule isn't needed for it to be considered edit warring. I feel like a multi-level warning template would've been better, like using uw-ewsoft at first, since they weren't exactly consistent reversions and it would've warned them at least once to not engage in what appeared to be edit warring. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're looking very closely at the diffs I've provided above. In any event, I thought it would be nice to inform the user about WP's policies about edit warring, since they do not appear to be familiar with them.  But since you've reverted my notification, perhaps you can explain it to them better than I did?  RecycledPixels (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like the person not paying enough attention to the diffs is me, as the third was a completely different picture. My apologies, I was wrong above.   RecycledPixels (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like the person not paying enough attention to the diffs is me, as the third was a completely different picture. My apologies, I was wrong above.   RecycledPixels (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Since this is a basic redirect (see WP:R), a simple #REDIRECT ___ tag is sufficient. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)