User talk:Krishendrix78

October 2018
You appear to be uploading to Commons a number of images from the RAF Museum website, although the website says "Copyright © 2018 Trustees of the Royal Air Force Museum". Please check the copyright rules for Wikipedia and for Commons very carefully, and make sure you provide evidence if you claim that images are free of copyright. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please read Help:Minor edit. A number of your recent edits were marked as minor but do not comply with that definition. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Mean as custard (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Mean as custard (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Krishendrix78. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Royal Air Force Museum London, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.  General Ization Talk  13:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Sir, I am employed by the RAF Museum. However, can I also point out that the original Wikipedia post was also written and edited by RAF Museum staff? Also, there was no problem when I uploaded images by the RAF Museum. If need be, I am glad for other volunteers/people to write and update content, if they wish to do so. On the other hand, I believe that the content I have written is correct and unbiased. I have merely described the new exhibitions and facilities. Feel free to let me know if there is anything in the content which does not seem right, according to the standards you refer to. Thanks, kris
 * There is no point in trying to educate you. You just don't get it. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mean as custard, there is no reason to insult me. And yes, what you wrote is insulting. I would appreciate it if you refrain from such personal attacks.

October 2018 second heading
Please comply immediately with our mandatory Paid editing disclosure. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not really clear to me how I am supposed to do this. Where do I put this? {RAF Museum (paid)}
 * You are not formatting the template properly. Please read the template documentation at Template:Connected contributor (paid). It should be on your user page and the article talk page. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * On your userpage (User:Krishendrix78), place the following:
 * The connected contributor template goes on the article talk page. I will put that there for you.
 * I'll also mention that it was always wrong for museum employees to have edited this article without disclosing their affiliation (particularly, whose account violates Wikipedia's username policy that forbids organizational names). Perhaps edits in the past went unnoticed, and it's unfortunate that these improper edits were not adequately addressed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help!

If I may be so frank, I assume the vast majority of major museums have their pages (partially) written by museum staff...

As to my contribution, I have had a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_War_Museum_Duxford and I find that the article here is very similar to what I have written. I am hoping that this will put an end to the discussion and the final edit can now be accepted. If not, I am more than willing to change or have other volunteers change what is considered to be promotional. I hope that sounds okay? --Krishendrix78 (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is incorrect. I have worked on several articles about museums and even wrote one, Manetti Shrem Museum of Art, but have no professional connection with any of those museums. No, your edit is not acceptable because it is in violation of our core content policies. We do not accept unreferenced promotional content written by museum staff. That is simply not going to happen. What you should be doing is suggesting reliable sources completely independent of the museum, and the article should summarize those sources. If you have found another museum article with problems, then the solution is to fix that article instead of adding more problematic unreferenced promotional content to this article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

So, just to get this right ... if I find reliable sources - not-RAF Museum - which provide the content to the article, and I reference these sources, it is okay? Thanks--Krishendrix78 (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC) kris
 * Finding the reliable sources is just the first step. You must follow all of our policies and guidelines scrupulously. You must not write anything that has even a hint or a whiff of promotionalism. I hope that you can now see how the content you tried to add fails that test. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  18:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have added independent references. Have changed a couple more things to make the article less promotional. If anything still seems promotional, then please point that section out to me and I will gladly change it. Thank you for your help.--Krishendrix78 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your references are bare URLs. Please format them with full bibliographic details, per Referencing for beginners. The number of external links is excessive. Please read External links and trim them way back. Wikipedia is not a tourist guidebook. Please remove the parking lot, charging station and transit information, and any other content that belongs in a guidebook instead. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  19:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Might I also recommend another way of editing that is looked upon more favourably by the community in circumstances where there is a conflict of interest. Use the Request edit template on the article talk page and list your suggested changes, so that another uninvolved editor can review them and provide feedback. The benefits of this approach include:
 * The critique of neutral third parties with no vested interest in the subject.
 * The expertise of experienced editors versed in the core content policies (verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable sources).
 * The establishment of your reputation as an editor who is willing to cooperate with others, particularly when you have a conflict of interest. It will assure others that you are editing in good faith and not for self-serving purposes. You will find others much more willing to help you as a result.
 * --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Could someone advice me on the recent RAF Museum version? I have re-introduced the list of aircraft, as this is the case with most aviation museums wikipedia pages. However, does this make the description too long? Should I move this to a seperate wiki page, as on the RAF Museum Cosford and the Imperial War Museum Duxford wiki pages ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force_Museum_Cosford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_War_Museum_Duxford --Krishendrix78 (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Signing posts
One more thing... when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button Signature icon april 2018.png located above the edit window.

wow, thanks a million! --Krishendrix78 (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 third heading
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Royal Air Force Museum London. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —— SerialNumber  54129  18:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was not aware of this rule. Yes, I reverted, but each time, I took the criticism on board and edited it accordingly. They were not mindless or stubborn reverts.Krishendrix78 (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Krishendrix78, now that you've been reported at WP:AN3 there is a risk you will be blocked. The safest course is for you to promise to wait for consensus before changing the article again. You believe that your reverts were not 'mindless or stubborn' but that makes no difference under our policy. Your changes still count as reverts and can trigger a sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely as per EdJohnston, if you see the message I left at the edit warring noticeboard, you need to confirm that you will not change the article again before gaining consensus for each edit of yours on the article's talk page. You're liable to be blocked if you don't confirm this at the soonest. Thanks, Lourdes  18:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave things as they are now and hope others will do the same. Krishendrix78 (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what I asked Krishendrix78; and that's not a deal you're driving. Others are free to make changes currently as they've not been disruptive. You have been disruptive; so I am once again asking: Do you accept that from hereon, you will not make any changes to the article unless you have discussed the same on the talk page and reached consensus? A yes or a no will suffice. Lourdes   02:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I will not be making any more edits --Krishendrix78 (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have suggested some edits. Can someone please have a look at this?--Krishendrix78 (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please?? --Krishendrix78 (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —— SerialNumber  54129  19:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Krishendrix78, thanks for your agreement to stop editing the article at Royal Air Force Museum London. The edit warring complaint has been closed with a warning to you. You are expected to make no further changes unless they have prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Hello, I'm Md.Ali25. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Md.Ali25 (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

requests for edit
The last major edit has some issues: For example, it mentions there are two new exhibitions, but only explains the first: ''Two exhibitions, RAF Stories and RAF First to the Future, opened in 2018 to commemorate the RAF centenary: RAF Stories, The First 100 years 1918-2018 of the RAF. This exhibition observes the RAF’s first 100 years, from its creation in 1918 as the world's first independent air force. It explores the different roles of the people of the RAF, alongside the great revolutions in technology.'' I would suggest adding First to the Future explores the role of technology in the RAF, the work of today's RAF and how the service is preparing for the future.

''Hangar 2, the Grahame-White Factory Also known as the Grahame-White Factory shows the earliest days of flight on the site of The London Aerodrome, through to the formation of the independent Royal Air Force in 1918.'' I think it is grammatically better to say Also known as the Grahame-White Factory, Hangar 2 shows the

Hangars 3 and 4: It includes original Battle of Britain fighter aircraft, the Hawker Hurricane, the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Supermarine Spitfire,[15] helicopters, and some Cold War jet aircraft. This gives the impression that there are Battle of Britain aircraft AND the Hurricane, Messerschmitt, ... while in fact they are the BoB aircraft. I suggest correcting it by putting these 3 aircraft between parentheses, or by adding as well as helicopters and Cold War jet aircraft.

''Hangar 5, the Bomber Hall Battle of Britain: the Nazi-German Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, Heinkel He 111 show the bombers, which were used during the Battle of Britain.'' Again, this is completely wrong as this is really a subsection within the Bomber Hall, rather than the main theme. Should be The Bomber Hall shows the bombers of Bomber Command, from the Avro Lancaster to the Avro Vulcan, but also the Nazi-German Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, Heinkel He 111 show the bombers, which were used during the Battle of Britain.

I hope this is clear. Thank you --Krishendrix78 (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to request that the maintenance templates are removed, as they are no longer actual. After my recent request, I will no longer request any more edits. The article as it is now has been re-written by other editors. It should now be conform to the wikipedia standards.--Krishendrix78 (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Finally, can I also request you to have a look at Imperial War Museum Duxford to make it conform to the standards applied to the RAF Museum page? --Krishendrix78 (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:RAFM hangar 6.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:RAFM hangar 6.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 00:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)