User talk:Flyguy649/Archive 14

Here is the real meatpuppet (User:65.96.66.80) who began all the attacks
This IP was blocked for 72 hours yesterday. All its attacks are similar and followed onto user:DGG. --Morenooso (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IPs generally don't get blocked permanently, but I'll look into it later as I'm about to head out for a bit. -- Flyguy649 talk 23:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. --Morenooso (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

deletion
It is requested by the parties this page is pertaining to that it be removed for privacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonioz (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Discuss removal on the Talk:Jon Moxley page. Be sure to leave a comment in the edit summary. -- Flyguy649 talk 19:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
I know you put my Site or whatever up for to be deleted or something but i know it was bad, but i wanted my site to be Interesting thats all, i know you would want to make your's interesting. and yes i should have checked first. WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE CLOSED FOR THIS> —Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneGuy1990 (talk • contribs) 21:21, April 6, 2010
 * I didn't nominate your page for deletion; it was User:ESkog . Sorry, but you're using Wikipedia in a way that it's not intended. Try reading WP:WELCOME and links therein. Regards, -- Flyguy649 talk 21:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Question Regaring Unaccurate Information
Hello Flyguy649, I know we have discussed about this topic several times, and I ask you to please pardon me. but I have been looking at some information in two articles. where I have found some unconsistancy in terms of citation. and also have found a group of persons manipulating the information to obtain the information they want.

I am refering to the articles Avianca and Qantas I personally have been trying to get the proper information to be displayed on the Avianca's article in terms of the foundation date. I have had some help in regards to the citations and sources needed to support this fact. but this is what I have found:


 * Mostrly users from Australia are fithing against this date. as they want Qantas to be shown as the second oldest airline.
 * Qantas article states quantas is the second oldes airline of the word. the citation the article uses is Qantas website. (Avianca's website also states Avianca was founded in 1919, but this was not accepted as it was the own company website. reliable third pary sources were requested. for which we have 4 reliable third party sources reflecting the foundation date of this airline, and the correct foundation date. the sources are shown in Aviancas discussion, but in summary include Colombian Goverment Pages, Aeronautica Civil de Colombia (Regulatory Agency of Colombian Airspace), Boeing, and Airbus. In addition I think all this 4 non company websites provide enoght information to support the foundation date of the airline.)
 * This grop of users are claiming Colombia national pride when it is clear that the pride is comming from their side.

I kinndly ask you to reconsider the evaluation of our sources for the Avianca Page, and for Qantas Page, Please considere changing the date yourself, and perhaps partially restricting the article to avoid this group of users to change the date again without providing proper sources. I think it is clear that we have provided enoght evidence that Avianca was founded in 1919 and it is the second oldest airline.

In addition, if we require proper third party sources for one article, then they all need third part sources, nt just one where we want to manipulate the information to change facts ;).

Thank you once again. DG (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Daniel, I'm working on a detailed reply. -- Flyguy649 talk 18:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you DG (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry it's taken a long time. I'm really busy in real life at the moment. Here are some comments:
 * I don't think there's any dispute about Qantas having been formed in 1920.
 * There's no doubt that SCADTA formed in 1919, prior to Qantas.
 * The question is, Was Avianca formed in 1919 or 1940 with the merger with SACO?
 * It's clear the airline considers the 1919 date to be its start. The SCADTA article states that AVIANCA was "forced to cease operations" and merge with SACO; however this statement is unreferenced. So the nature of the merger isn't clear to me.
 * Reliable sources are contradictory with respect to which airline is older. From FlightGlobal/Flight International: This article states that Qantas is the world's second oldest, and this one states Qantas is the world's oldest continuously operating airline (KLM ceased flying during part of WWII, apparently). However, this article states that Avianca is the world's second oldest airline after KLM. Certainly press releases from Airbus and Boeing support the 1919 date for Avianca, but I wonder if they're perhaps mashing together press releases with the airline. Remember also that it doesn't serve the manufacturers to irritate a customer that has just purchased billions of dollars worth of aircraft.


 * Clearly both airlines can't be right as to which is the world's second oldest. Other airlines with long histories (e.g. British Airways) don't claim the date of formation to be that of the oldest predecessor airline. I prefer Qantas's claim. But preferences don't count. So what to do here? At Wikipedia we shouldn't be synthesizing information, only putting together statements supported by reliable sources. BOTH airlines have reliable sources backing their claims. Why not just qualify any statements? -- Flyguy649 talk 00:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, sorry it took me long to reply I was victim of the volcano lol. well really the biggest intention of my question/concern is manipulation of the sources, I have seen there are several users highy active in both Avianca, and qantas pages; several users including me when I first started at wikipedia before knowing all the rules, attempted changind the date. just by knowing the fact. inmediately few minutes after the date was changed they will revert the change. after all those users asked for source a link to Avianca's page was offered. but this was rejected as it was non third party. now looking at Qantas article the source provided is surprisingly Qantas web page. which I find not to follow the requisites presented to the Avianca page.


 * 1. I agree with you that big aircraft manufactures want to keep their customers happy, but why do they claim Avianca as the second oldest and not Qantas?
 * 2. If there are more sources "also including" the Avianca page claiming Avianca as the second oldes airline, why are we trying to hide that fact?
 * for number two the sources start with Avianca's webpage go to Airbus and Boing and also shows proof of Colombian Goverment concidering the 90 year fact.
 * 3. it is irrelebant to me which is determned or not as the second oldest airline. but it does bug me that the information wikipidea is providing is not accurate. Avianca's page in spanish and english differ in many ways including this fact. this shall not be accepted, as the degree of acceptability for the article will go down.


 * I think there are many users trying to "manipulate" the information here. and again I do not care who holds the title of the oldest, anyways they both have 90 years and difere by months. but the policy is not being enforce equialy for both articles. and this is first not fair, and secondly not reliable.


 * I hope my opinion changes the way you see my first post, and perhaps make my self clear on what I really want to go down to. ;)

DG (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Pd. if possible please leave a short message on my talk when u reply. sometimes this still confusing to me when replies are posted. ;) Thank you.


 * Sorry, Daniel. I usually leave notes. I've got a busy day, but I should be able to reply today or tomorrow. -- Flyguy649 talk 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem :D did you had a chance to look over my comments? DG (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Flguy: this is a post regarding what you said before: "It's clear the airline considers the 1919 date to be its start. The SCADTA article states that AVIANCA was "forced to cease operations" and merge with SACO; however this statement is unreferenced. So the nature of the merger isn't clear to me.". I'll try to give you a short version of why Scadta changed its name to Avianca in 1940. Scadta had a heay participation of germans and when WWII started, the American government started to wipe off almost all german presence in America (the continent, not the country). They forced the german dude to sell his shares to PanAm and some months later, they removed all german pilots, workers and, of course, the name SCADTA. Remember that SCADTA is an acronym and it holds the word "alemana" (german) in it. The United States governement pushed for a legal move in which SACO would enter the company so it had to change the name to Avianca. But in all reality, it was just an excuse as all the assets and non-german crew remained. All in all, it was not a merger at all... it was a rebrand from Scadta to Avianca to get rid of any possible german participation in the airlne. I agree with DG regarding the acceptance of some resources for the Qanta's page but not for Avianca's. To be honest, I think this all goes down to the fact that if Avianca's foundation date is accepted as 1919, Qantas couldn't be really be considered the second oldest airline and that's something that the australian users are trying to avoid. There's some type of concensus in the Avianca page as now it has a "commenced operations" and "founded" dates but I think those names refer to almost the same moment. I think it should be either "commenced operations" and "rebranded" (for the 1940 date) or "founded" and "rebranded". It's kinda confusing to have an airline that commenced operations in 1919 but was founded in 1940... Mekanos (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, you should read citation note number 4 in Avianca's page. It's from a book in english that gives more details on what happened with Scadta back then when it was rebrandes as Avianca. It will give you much more light and info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekanos (talk • contribs) 04:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Fly guy
If you are on solid ground, do you mind taking a peak at a page that is teeting on an edit war? I am trying to avoid this at ALL costs, and have already posted my concerns on the WP noticeboard for biographies. It's about Shane Salerno. Looks as though the page is written by him or his publicist. Full of opinion and all sorts of unfactual stuff. Needs and overhaul. Someone with proficiency in editing needs. Which leaves me out! Jim Steele (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of busy at the moment and it may take me a day or two to give this the attention it requires. If you're in a hurry, perhaps try someone else. You can also try the conflict of interest noticeboard. -- Flyguy649 talk 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Took your advice and posted it on the board. Once again thanks for the help! Jim Steele (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah man, in a few days can really things change around here. See So much for trying to clean up articles!

Thanks for the note! Oh, the power of the written word... Jim Steele (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like a bit of a mess... -- Flyguy649 talk 03:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Blindman shady's reversion on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash
Just to let you know, this edit you reverted was actually removing vandalism. See Borat Sagdiyev. -- Flyguy649 talk 17:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. I thought that someone removed someone important because I was seeing other stuff like the addition of Harry Potter as the Deputy of Wizardry or some BS like that. (I didn't even read the name... oops) Thanks for letting me know! :)  Blind man   shady  18:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! It happens. 18:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Block failed
When you blocked 217.169.37.146 on March 30 for 2 weeks, the block was ineffective; immediately upon block expiration, he/she is back to his/her old tricks. I request you take more effective action. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it worked for the two weeks. Re-blocked for 1 month. Thanks for letting me know! -- Flyguy649 talk 16:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your note
Please unprotect as you see fit, FG, and thanks for checking first. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * TY, done. -- Flyguy649 talk 00:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash
Thank you for referencing WP:sofixit. However, the user "doomedsoldiers" is proposing that we basically blank the article and ignore most wikipedia policies on including reliable, third party sources. Hence the heated debate. N419BH (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was being a bit flip. Sofixit was a hint to edit harmoniously, and to make smart changes himself. Probably falling on deaf ears. -- Flyguy649 talk 00:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to reach out to him on his talk page with some specific suggestions. Maybe that will help him realize that he is presenting a valid point (anonymous quotes and no official explanation), but he's going about it the wrong way (nuke the article). We'll see if it helps. N419BH (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

RE:Lila Cheney 336 SPI
No problem. I suppose this is a chance to see how well IRC's memoserv system works! Thanks for reporting the case. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thomas M. Cubit
You have deleted a page about "Thomas M. Cubit". Please be advised that he is a well known prominent attorney in South Florida who has represented some of the most notable cases in South Florida. He is a member of the Million Dollar Advocate Forum which is represented by less than 1% of America's lawyers.

Judith Accileron 4/20/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connerito (talk • contribs) 18:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply on user's talk . -- Flyguy649 talk 18:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Loo jun hui
Why did you remove my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqaing (talk • contribs) 15:31, April 24, 2010
 * It was a biography of a non-notable person. Please read Wikipedia's guide to writing your first article for hints and suggestions. -- Flyguy649 talk 15:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
I wanted to thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded at 134/4/0. I am truly amazed but equally elated by the result and I hope I am able to serve as a good administrator. It was a surreal experience to succeed, and I will strive to meet your expectations.

More specifically, thank you for your support. It really is an honor to be called a fine candidate by any means, so I am very grateful for your feedback.

Thanks!  ceran  thor 15:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Best of luck. -- Flyguy649 talk 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
looks like a new sockpuppet of and. I couldn't find where to add it at WP:SPI. --Dbratland (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made Sockpuppet investigations/Zzzax 937. --Dbratland (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've added to your report that this is an obvious sock of . We're onto WP:BRI to WP:DENY this puppeteer, so we're not tagging any socks anymore. Annoying, though, for sure! -- Flyguy649 talk 06:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep an eye on List of The Backyardigans episodes
Use of Cluestick may be required Half  Shadow  15:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, unexpected hiatus of several days. -- Flyguy649 talk 18:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)