User talk:Mmb777e

Revisions to Braniff article
I have reverted for a second time the unexplained deletions to the Braniff article made by the anon IP 50.161.85.102. As this is an airline about which I am not expert and you are, I would suggest that you keep a close eye on it for awhile to protect it against further deletions by this user who edits under a number of IP which resolve to Oakland, CA (this one), Walnut Creek, CA, and the Berkeley (CA) Public Library as he/she has also made similar unexplained deletions to other airline and commercial aviation articles (Boeing 314 for instance) that I and other editors have had to revert recently. I don't want to drawn into an edit war or 3RR situation with the Braniff article with this anon IP by reverting his/her changes a third time as I and another editor are already dealing with him/her in the 314 article to which I am an established contributor. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. I have been watching this interesting event taking place and have been perplexed myself.  There was also another person who does nothing but remove and reword information that made some unneeded edits to the article.  I am not sure what they hope to gain by doing this other than creating a problematic situation.  Oftentimes what I do is leave their revision alone and then go back and change it manually so they are less likely to be aware that the changes were made.  This person that you have reverted has been removing citations from the article for no reason or rhyme.  Its very aggravating and clearly someone that is up to mischief.  Thank you again for watching Braniff for me! Mmb777e (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, sir. These "deletionists" that populate WP ... especially the anonymous ones who do so from multiple IPs and usually without explanation ... are one of the banes of the project, and more often than not tend to practice their mischief in areas in which they have no demonstrated background and/or understanding. Unfortunately, however, it seems they will always be with us and so it becomes up to the rest of us try to minimize the damage they do. When one of these appears in an article to which I have contributed and makes multiple, repeated deletions and reversions, after fixing them I then also look at their recent edit history to see if they are doing this in other articles which is how I found these deletions in the Braniff entry. I will continue to keep my eye in this one, but as I am not expert on that carrier's history will leave it to you as its major contributor to follow up while another editor and I deal with these similar issues with this multiple anon IP deletionist in the Boeing 314 entry. All best. Centpacrr (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to be of help. It is actually very east to request protection. Simply click on the letters "rpp" in the menubar at th top of the page, fill in th short form, and submit the request. An admin will usually protect the page within half an hour or so. Centpacrr (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a note that the troublesome anon IP deletionist has now again reverted and reinstated his/her deletions to the Braniff article, this time from 75.16.27.73 an IP that he/she uses that resolves to the Berkeley Public Library. This is, however, clearly the same individual. As I noted above, I am not going to revert them again as I am not expert in this topic and also don't want to be accused of violating the 3RR rule (which he/she has now done, by the way), so I would suggest that you do so now as an expert on the history and operation of Braniff while I continue to deal with him/her in the Boeing 314 article. It is also effective to have more than one editor deal with this. All best. Centpacrr (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Anon IP user (this time from the Walnut Creek ISP) deleted again without explanation. I again reverted the deletions and formally requested protection of the article. The protection request was made by me both by template and directly to the sysop who just protected the Boeing 314 article for one month which has been repeatedly attacked for the past week by the same multiple anon IP user. That request can bee seen here which you may want to add a note of support for it. Centpacrr (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I cant thank you enough for keeping an eye on this for me. I have a huge Braniff History and Architecture Conference coming up next week and I have been overwhelmed with that. I filed a vandal complaint with Wikipedia and I will go and add to your protection request. Thank you so very much. Mmb777e (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Happy to help. sir. All best for your conference. Centpacrr (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: Article has been protected for two weeks from being edited by unregistered users (i.e., anon IPs) so should be safe until then. Hopefully the IP will either explain his/her proposed changes in talk during that time or lose interest in making them. Time will tell I expect. Have a good conference next week. If I were in Dallas I would have made it a point to attend it. Centpacrr (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is fantastic! Thank you again. Mmb777e (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Alas, another editor, a sysop based in Cambridge, England, who describes him/herself as a "biologist" who specializes in articles on plants but appears to have no demonstrated interest or expertise in the history of commercial aviation in the US or elsewhere, has unilaterally made a blanket restoration of all of the anon IP's changes. This user, who also self describes as a WP "exclusionist" (I am personally a WP "inclusionist"), gives as his/her reason in the article's talk page for doing so his/her disagreement over elements of POV and style ("neutral and concise") but curiously appears to have given little or no particular consideration to the loss of relevant content, detail, and context supported by reliable, cited sources the deletions impose on the entry. However as I am not expert in the history of Braniff (and clearly neither is he/she), I would suggest that you, as a demonstrated leader in this overall field and specific topic, should review all these deletions to the article one-by-one when you have a chance to do so and restore and/or rewrite the relevant contextual material that has been lost by way of the blanket deletions. I'm sorry I don't feel qualified to do this myself, but with your special long standing expertise I think this is something that will be much more efficiently and effectively done by you, and hopefully your revisions/restorations will be much more likely to survive future challenges than what I might do. I have added a note on the article's talk page that you will address these issues, and that because of your background and expertise in the field your judgement and edits should be accorded very considerable deference by the community. Centpacrr (talk) 00:41, September 6, 2014 (UTC)


 * HE'S BACK: The anon IP editor from Berkeley seems to be at it again now that the protection on the Braniff page has expired. I have reverted his deletions once again but you should keep an eye on the page as well. Centpacrr (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * He has now done it a second time from his Oakland IP; I have reverted again. Centpacrr (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The anon IP editor has now deleted your Braniff material using a fifth IP (128.42.104.169) which this time resolves to the University of California (Berkeley) thus again putting him in violation of 3RR. Centpacrr (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The page has now been semi-protected (only autoconfirmed registered users can edit) at my request for 30 days and the deletions have been restored by an admin. Centpacrr (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU so much for watching over this for me. I am on vacation this week and have a tour we are conducting of a Braniff building this coming Saturday. My time is thin at the moment. Thank you again. Mmb777e (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is currently "safe" until the beginning of November when the current semi-protection I requested expires unless the multiple anon IP user chooses to register as a named user which I very much doubt he/she will do. You should therefore make it a point to check back on November 3 to again revert any unsupported changes which our friend from the Bay Area will no doubt try to make again as soon as its protected status ends. Centpacrr (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The anon sockpuppet IP editor removed the material again today after the Braniff article came off of semi-protection. As before, I immediately reverted the changes and requested restoration of semi-protection (permitting autoconfirmed editors only to edit) which was promptly granted for a period of three months this time. Let's hope this will be enough to keep it safe. Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot thank you enough for keeping an eye on this for me. It is so greatly appreciated. I have been inundated lately with projects for the Braniff Family retirement groups. Take a look at my article Harding Lawrence and note that someone attempted to ad a ridiculous article written 30 years ago by local Dallas reporter Byron Harris. The article has been proved to be nothing more than trashing of Mr. Lawrence's tenure and record. It full of conjecture, gossip, and outright lies. I removed the reference to the article because of it untruths but also because of the improper way that it was applied and with the malice in the tone of the note of the non registered contributor. If this escalates to a war can you assist me with having the article protected? Thanks as always. Mmb777e (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Halston
Hi. If you'll note, the content about Halton's first dress for Mary Wells Lawrence is still in the article but was moved to the "Success" section. It directly follows the text about Halston's rise to fame for designing Jacqueline Kennedy's pill box hat. It just doesn't have its own section. The only thing I removed from that text was the word "legendary" because it is woefully POV in nature. If you're referring to the entire "Uniforms for Braniff Airways" section, I didn't remove that either. All the content about the line, the launch party and the reaction of the employees is still there. As you were not specific about what content you believe I removed that is important to the article, I'm just basically guessing to what you're referring to so you'll have to be more detailed. Alternatively, you can add back what you think is important. I was working on an older version of the article I had saved on my computer so it is entirely possible I did miss whatever you added and didn't actually remove it - it just wasn't in the version I was working with.  Pinkadelica ♣  04:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexander Calder painted Douglas DC-8 for Braniff AIrways 1973.jpg
You are invited to join the discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexander Calder painted Douglas DC-8 for Braniff AIrways 1973.jpg. Thanks. Ron h jones (Talk) 15:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pan American-Grace Airways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buenaventura ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Pan_American-Grace_Airways check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Pan_American-Grace_Airways?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 08:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my edits to Braniff International Airways
To Mmb777e,

Clearly you are an expert regarding Braniff International Airways as the current owner of all of Braniff's intellectual property. I just want to let you know that I didn't intended to vandalize the page on Braniff Airways with my edits. I only removed your name and that of Mr.States from the infobox of Braniff's page due to an inability to verify both of you and Mr. States as affiliated personal of Braniff Airways. I was incorrect, and will allow both of your names to remain on the infobox of Braffiff's page. My edit regarding the 1980 fleet information was out of a belief that it was too specific in regards to a certain period of time during Braniff's existence. I merely thought that particular section was too detailed for non-aviation geeks or the general public. It may be better to keep the section due to the presence of a useful reference link. I do appreciate your contributions to both the Braiff Airways page as well as your continued role in preserving Braniff's historical legacy. As it is, I will defer to you as an expert with regards to Braniff Airways' page from now on.

Leiwang7 (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)