User talk:Shencypeter/Archives/2021/February

Only include tags
Hi Shencypeter. If you edit the lede to Boeing_737_MAX_groundings remember to keep the onlyinclude tags in the right places, which is at the beginning and end of the lede, next to their explanatory notes. They mark out the text that gets transcluded into Boeing_737_MAX Wordlwide groundings and prevents the account on that page disagreeing with the lede on this one. I've repaired it. Can delete this note if you want.Thanks. E x nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

thanks Shencypeter (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the template message. When you make changes to the lede of the article that don't help, or introduce inaccurate information, as you've done a number of times, I'll revert to the previous version. Not counting yourself, exactly one of my edits was reverted recently, by an IP, while half a dozen or more of your lede edits have been reverted by multiple editors. I believe you want to improve the article, but excessive re-editing of the lede is not helpful. DonFB (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX groundings
I understand you are willing to do good, but please be careful to not disrupt wikipedia for that, please follow the guidelines. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boeing 737 MAX, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White tail. 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) 06:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Odd revert
Hi, your seems like it might have been an accident, on two fronts:


 * 1) The content you removed from the article was about approval for ending the grounding, but your edit summary seems to refer only to initiating the grounding. This breaches WP:REVTALK: Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit.
 * 2) Because the edit summary does not explain the content removal (see above), the edit constitutes unexplained removal of content. As such, it is open to being promptly reverted.

It would be great if you could have another look at that edit, and put it right: e.g. restore the content, or explain the content removal.

Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , They didn't just decide in December 2020 (date of the news citation) to not follow FAA's lead right after they rescinded the order. Recertification is a multi-national effort since FAA had previously delegated everything to Boeing. For the same reason an American Airlines journalism flight is not encyclopedic, the regulators can be listed on the timeline when they do unground. Further, FAA pretended for five months, and two days after China's grounding, that the crashes weren't related. Shencypeter (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Peter, I forgot to unfollow your talk page and saw this conversation. This is not about the event itself but about the Wikipedia editing. You have to respect other editors additions. You can find an addition is redundant, but then you have to point where the statement is already present in the article, or move the new addition in a more relevant place. I understand you have strong feelings about these groundings, but remember we have to work together. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for this. Zazpot (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, I still don't think you have justified the content deletion that you performed.
 * You said, [The specified international regulators] didn't just decide in December 2020 (date of the news citation) to not follow FAA's lead right after they rescinded the order. Fair enough. But nobody (not me; not the content you deleted) is asserting that they did do that. Rather, the content you deleted pointed out that in December 2020, several certification bodies that usually defer to the FAA on certification issues decided not to do so in regard to ending the 737 MAX grounding. (See point 1 in my initial comment above.) This decision by those regulators is a notable development, covered by multiple WP:RS of which one was cited, that had not been mentioned in the article. As such, it was (and is) valid content for Wikipedia.
 * You said, Recertification is a multi-national effort.... Again, I agree; but again, nobody (not me; not the content you deleted) is asserting otherwise. So this, too, is not grounds for deleting that content.
 * I agree that regulators can be listed on the timeline if or when they unground. However, the content that you deleted will not preclude this, so again this is not grounds for deleting that content.
 * In light of the above points, I intend to reinstate the content. I hope you will understand.
 * Best wishes, Zazpot (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't care less. Shencypeter (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX groundings ~
There is an active discussion on the talk page ~ do you think you might want to discuss it before all your changes? Not saying your changes do not improve the article but you know, discussion is nice I have reverted all your edits, lets talk. By the way nice to meet you! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)