User talk:RecycledPixels/Archive 1

Category:Sardinian people by religion has been nominated for discussion
Category:Sardinian people by religion, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, along with a group of similar categories. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Aeroméxico connect 2431
Do not edit the summary pending an agreement made at a prior date. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's odd, I don't see any agreement made at a prior date on the article's history or the article's talk page. Care to point me to the location of this discussion? RecycledPixels (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please look back in the history regarding Sam4u. As stated before the summary is fine as it is, if you making a change or edit on it please make a note in the talk page. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused.  Sam4u has never edited this article, unless he is using some other user name, and there is no discussion in the edit history.  I will casually point out that your message here and your actions did seem unreasonably combative, but after seeing the note on your user page I will assume that was unintended on your part.   Just so you know.  RecycledPixels (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Right? Combative is not the word. Firslty, a summary is supposed to something small as noted with the current, appropriate summary. Secondly you do not need all the reasons placed on the summary remember you are summarising. Thirdly there was no reason to even change the summary and yes there was a disc Joan on the pages history regarding A) summary layout and B) whether microburst should be included. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Combative is the right word. When you leave a note on the talk page of someone who has put a lot of work into an article that says "Do not edit the summary pending an agreement made at a prior date"  followed by an immediate change to the article with the edit summary "Do my alter the summary it is fine as it is" , that's something that most experienced editors would view as unreasonably combative, especially when I had already familiarized myself with the edit history and the talk page history of the article before doing anything.  Disagreeing with some of my edits is fine, telling me why you think my edit is wrong is fine, but telling me not to change it from your preferred version is never going to go over well around here.
 * With regards to the substance of the changes you are trying to impose, which is a relatively trivial change ("Crashed on takeoff due to low altitude wind shear, crew error, and air traffic control error" vs "Crashed on takeoff due to low altitude windshear and pilot error"), I've seen your other edits and notice that you use the aviation herald site as a reference much of the time. It's worth pointing out that that page has an incomplete summary of the investigation's findings.   If you look through the actual investigation report, on page 66, there are two parts of the "contributing factors" section of the report.  The first is three items related to mistakes made by the crew, which the avherald site does include although it left off the fact that the commission faulted the cabin crew for not noticing that the trainee pilot, who was supposed to be seated in the passenger cabin, was in fact in the cockpit, which was why "crew error" is a better summary than "pilot error" ; the second part of that section is three items related to procedural errors made by "Servicios a la Navegación en el Espacio Aéreo Mexicano" including the failure of ATC to communicate important variations of wind direction, wind speed, and visibility and the lack of supervising personnel.   That section was not included at all on the avherald site.   My addition of "air traffic control error" in the infobox summary was pretty concise, to the point, and relevant.    RecycledPixels (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The summary has already been discussed and finalised. Do not change it, if you want to, bring it up on the talk page first before you change it. Secondly you are including to much on the summary.ive done that before and trust me you don’t want to be wanted about it. So leave it be. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sardinian monks


A tag has been placed on Category:Sardinian monks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Christianity in Sardinia


A tag has been placed on Category:Christianity in Sardinia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sardinian clergy


A tag has been placed on Category:Sardinian clergy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * you don't need to notify me about these speedy deletions of the Sardinian categories, I am aware of the cleanup process you are doing. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:16th century in Sardinia


A tag has been placed on Category:16th century in Sardinia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sardinian religious leaders


A tag has been placed on Category:Sardinian religious leaders requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Centuries in Sardinia


A tag has been placed on Category:Centuries in Sardinia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for United Airlines Flight 297
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Red yeast rice GA review
I believe I have addressed the comments in the first pass for the red yeast rice article review for GA status. Disclosure: at my User page I disclose that from 2004-2018 I was a consultant to dietary supplement companies (now retired). During that time none of my clients ever asked me to edit Wikipedia, nor were aware that I edited articles at Wikipedia. None of my clients sold red yeast rice products during the times I worked for them. I wrote several articles for trade magazines about RYR. Most recent (2010) at page 33 at https://en.calameo.com/read/000151313b0c4beef2146 David notMD (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see you are still doing work on the article and I'm going to be pretty busy in the real world for the next few days, so I'll wait until you've done what you're working on before making another pass.  RecycledPixels (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will be traveling June 25-30, and bust with stuff, but with internet access. If you want to continue the review, go ahead, but I may be slow in my responses. David notMD (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * May be able to work on this now, but more after 30th.David notMD (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, hopefully I will be getting back at it today, I'm only semi-busy today. RecycledPixels (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you waiting for some action by me? I am at home now, but traveling again on 19th, so hoping to conclude this before then. P.S. I have asked Doc James to look at the article, as he is an extremely active editor on medical and health topics, whose contributions I trust. He has not yet edited the article, but may show up. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the ball is in my court, but I took some days off for the holidays, preceeded by a very busy woprk schedule, so things may be settling down for me in the next couple of days. Sorry about the delay, I thought I was going to get to it sooner. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am willing to wait. Six months passed between my nomination and your agreement to do the GA evaluation. However, if you decide that you will not be able to continue the process, let me know so that the nomination can start over with a new reviewer. David notMD (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to this. I intend to do a Did You Know for the article, and in process, will attempt to address the notes you left on the GA review. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Paradise Airlines Flight 901A
valereee (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking back at this DYK I accepted, this page seemed to reach over 7000 views. Why was this user not given a barnstar or this page added to the hall of fame? AmericanAir88(talk) 02:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aeroméxico Connect Flight 2431
The article Aeroméxico Connect Flight 2431 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aeroméxico Connect Flight 2431 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Pan Am Flight 7
valereee (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Aeroméxico Connect Flight 2431
valereee (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Airlines Flight 297
The article United Airlines Flight 297 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United Airlines Flight 297 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211
The article US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pan Am Flight 214
The article Pan Am Flight 214 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pan Am Flight 214 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pan Am Flight 7
The article Pan Am Flight 7 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pan Am Flight 7 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Sturgis
Hi, thanks for your DYK review. FYI, only the final line should use the approved/maybe/rejected icon. If you wish to use symbols throughout the review, please use ticks: for "yes" and  for "no". Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks.  RecycledPixels (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, RecycledPixels -- I was reading through the HathiTrust source, checking against the early paragraphs of the Sturgis article, and while I'm seeing heavy reliance on that source, I'm not seeing paraphrasing that's so close it concerns me. Do you remember which section it was that had concerned you? --valereee (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Biography section. See comparison below between the source and the article.  RecycledPixels (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I compared the three side-by-side versions at https://www.prepostseo.com/plagiarism-comparison-search and I'm not finding anything, really. There's one use of 'summer and autumn' that might be too close, so I'll go change that, but otherwise everything looks pretty kosher. The information is the same, but the language isn't, according to that comparison. (I usually check with Earwig, but since the HathiTrust isn't readily available it's not possible.) Thanks for your diligence! --valereee (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note; my concern was the close paraphrasing of the source (as I understand close paraphrasing), not a direct cut and paste of the source, which is all Earwig and other plagiarism search engines will detect. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211
Hello! Your submission of US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pan Am Flight 214
Hello! Your submission of Pan Am Flight 214 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Francesco Zirano
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Francesco Zirano you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nemoschool -- Nemoschool (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Francesco Zirano
The article Francesco Zirano you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Francesco Zirano for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nemoschool -- Nemoschool (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eastern Air Lines Flight 512
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eastern Air Lines Flight 512 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eastern Air Lines Flight 512
The article Eastern Air Lines Flight 512 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eastern Air Lines Flight 512 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eastern Air Lines Flight 512
The article Eastern Air Lines Flight 512 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Eastern Air Lines Flight 512 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawing GA nomination
It's necessary and sufficient to remove the GAN template from the article talk page. No need to remove it from Good article nominations list because Legobot will do that for you. buidhe 06:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eastern Air Lines Flight 512
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eastern Air Lines Flight 512 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eastern Air Lines Flight 512
The article Eastern Air Lines Flight 512 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eastern Air Lines Flight 512 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eastern Air Lines Flight 512
The article Eastern Air Lines Flight 512 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Eastern Air Lines Flight 512 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It passed. There's just a known bot bug to where if the article has failed GA before, it can't figure out it passed the second time through. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paradise Airlines Flight 901A
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paradise Airlines Flight 901A you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paradise Airlines Flight 901A
The article Paradise Airlines Flight 901A you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Paradise Airlines Flight 901A for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paradise Airlines Flight 901A
The article Paradise Airlines Flight 901A you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paradise Airlines Flight 901A for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
I participated in the deletion discussions for both of these articles, and it's evident how drastically they were improved because of your work. Thank you.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  03:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you the barnstar and for the feedback! RecycledPixels (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:MX submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate Editor RecycledPixels to be Editor of the Week for his outstanding work in aviation. He's been an editor for over 13 years and has 15,000+ edits (under another username). My favorite work he's done is Aeroméxico Connect Flight 2431, a passenger flight that resulted in no fatalities but triggered a detailed investigation on the causes of the accident. I mention this in specific because it is extremely difficult to find sources and research on a topic that yielded no fatalities (since it wouldn't be on the headlines after a day or two). Other aviation articles he's written have the same degree of awesomeness: US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211, Eastern Air Lines Flight 512, Pan Am Flight 214, and United Airlines Flight 297, to name a few. RecycledPixels has been a long-time member of this community, a pleasure to work with, and I cannot offer a better candidate for EotW!

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   14:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Glad to see editors like you get a mention for their hard work. Well deserved; I look forward to reading more from you. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 17:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nomination, recognition, and feedback. I really appreciate it.  RecycledPixels (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for American Airlines Flight 320
— Wug·a·po·des​ 23:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC) 00:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Where?
In this article does it either say '"The cause(s) of the excessive pitch-up and steep climb after take-off was not determined."' or '"The review was unable to determine that the aeroplane became airborne early or at too low an airspeed, determined that the aeroplane should have been controllable even with the estimated centre of gravity being so far aft of the allowable limit, and therefore was unable to conclude that the position of the centre of gravity was the most significant factor contributing to the accident." It doesn't and those are quotes. This sloppy editing is a plague to WP I see it far too often. Putting a reference on a sentence and the reference says no such thing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you reverted me before I finished cleaning up that section and I got edit conflicted. I'm happy to clean it up, if you can give me a few minutes to work on it.   Also, you can also use the cn tag on something you don't think is referenced, rather than delete significant parts of the article for being unreferenced.   RecycledPixels (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm stepping away for a while now. I'll come back later to it.  RecycledPixels (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - I've rewritten the investigation section, take a look at it and see what you think. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American Airlines Flight 320
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article American Airlines Flight 320 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American Airlines Flight 320
The article American Airlines Flight 320 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:American Airlines Flight 320 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American Airlines Flight 320
The article American Airlines Flight 320 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:American Airlines Flight 320 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Peer review for Pan Am Flight 7
Hi RecycledPixels, I just saw you closed the peer review for Pan Am Flight 7 because no one had commented on it. I was actually going to ask you if you would like some comments, but I didn't get around to it until right now! If you want, I can leave some feedback. Zetana (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . I'd appreciate that, if you get a chance.  I'll revert my close of that peer review.  Thank you.  RecycledPixels (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look soon! Hopefully by tonight, but I'll have more time tomorrow. Zetana (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't be able to get to it tonight, but I should have time tomorrow night to take a closer look. Zetana (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . I just logged on and looked over your changes.  At the end I saw you revert everything, and I reverted your revert because I thought they were good changes.  But then I rechecked my watchlist and saw that it was just happening right now, so sorry if I messed you up, I thought it happened a while ago (dang UTC timestamps).  RecycledPixels (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh it's alright, I wanted to revert my edits because I thought they were going a bit overboard. I've just left some comments exclusively on content-related stuff on the PR. Once those are resolved I can take a closer look at the prose. Zetana (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 7 scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 May 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/May 28, 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

q
Usually, I'd give you now Precious for that beautiful TFA of yours. Having read your user page, I'm not sure if that wasn't a double. Would you like it or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I would love it. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

AIN Online
This is to let you know that an edit of yours in mentioned in this discussion on the status of AIN online as an (un)reliable source. You might want to contribute. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. I've been watching that discussion and wasn't even aware that it related to a publication that I added to the list.   I had to dig through my edit history to gain some context of why I would have singled that source out, and I'm starting to remember, but since the article I was looking at was deleted, I don't remember specifics of what the source said.   RecycledPixels (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Bandon State Airport
Thanks for fixing the article, now it looks way better. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Re:MOS:GOD

 * God is capitalized only when it is a title for the deity of the Abrahamic religions

Where does the article say that Joe Donnell is a Jew, Christian, or Muslim? The article says that Donnell represents the Dakota people who practice different religions, including Christianity, traditional tribal religion, Native American Church, and Wocekiye. Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You left out the first part of that sentence. "In biblical and related contexts, God is capitalized only when it is a title for the deity of the Abrahamic religions..." This is an article about a politician, not a biblical topic.  Thus, read that paragraph again, which starts out: "Proper names and conventional titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah."  The rest of that paragraph carves out specific exceptions to that sentence, none of them apply here.  RecycledPixels (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the polite correction. Viriditas (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Pan Am Flight 7
Congratulations, and thank you today when it is presented on the Main page. You introduced: "Pan Am Flight 7 is about an airline flight from San Francisco to Honolulu that never reached its destination. The article describes the flight, important details about the aircraft, the enormous search and rescue operation that was carried out when contact was lost with the aircraft, and details of the investigation that was carried out using a few pieces of recovered wreckage and the remains of a few of the victims. To this day, the cause of the crash has never been determined. Although there have been various theories, this incident remains an unsolved mystery."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Paradise Flight FAC
Just wanted to drop by to apologize that I didn't come back to the FAC in time - I've been offwiki for the most part for the extended weekend due to some real-life stuff and by the time I got back to it, the nomination had been archived. I'm not sure my support would have changed that single-handedly, but I still wanted you to know that I didn't decide to ignore you all of a sudden. Please ping me or drop me a message when you nominate your next FAC (whether it's that article or another) and I'll give it a review (and finish it this time!) PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I didn't get stressed out that you didn't make it back.  I'm planning to re-nominate it after the two week waiting period, and I will ping you in the nomination statement.   If you get a chance then, chime in with your opinions.   Thank you for your help.   RecycledPixels (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely looking forward to the renomination -- it was a great read, and deserving of FA recognition. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (still looking forward to seeing this, btw) <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 02:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I finally made the time to renominate this article. Thank you for your contributions.   RecycledPixels (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of XiamenAir Flight 8667
The article XiamenAir Flight 8667 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:XiamenAir Flight 8667 and Talk:XiamenAir Flight 8667/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of XiamenAir Flight 8667
The article XiamenAir Flight 8667 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:XiamenAir Flight 8667 for comments about the article, and Talk:XiamenAir Flight 8667/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)