User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 7

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Iran Airtour and Homa Hotels
A good friend of mine and I made this section a lot more concise and meaningful. Previous paragraphs were shamefully wrong. Pull out of this page please. Leave it to Insiders. Thanks Theeasytarget (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Incidents
They're all based on much-respected aviation safety records websites, what the hell wrong with you? Are you mad? See a doctor. Theeasytarget (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Theeasytarget I removed them because you copied-and-pasted the text from a copyright source, which is illegal pretty-much everywhere on the planet. So, what is wrong with you, that you would undo edits that save Wikipedia from prosecution? YSSYguy (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah cool edit those ones, reword them.0, but don't do crazy stuff to my own work such as the latest development in Airbus orders. Or the section regarding who owns Iran Air. Or its former subsidiaries. I have not copied them from ANYWHERE. Do you even understand? Theeasytarget (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

ATR Deal
http://www.azernews.az/region/106973.html

As you can see, no contract has been signed yet. The parties are to meet on this Wednesday. Please do not edit Iran Air article you seem to be oblivious to many facts surrounding this whole topic. Thanks. Theeasytarget (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, see you on January the 3rd. It's gonna be fun. Theeasytarget (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Easy target
I've given suitable advice re NPA and COPYVIO, with a clear warning of the consequenses. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mjroots, it looks like I have another Iranian-airline-article-nutjob on my hands (or the same one with a different account) at Iran Air Tours. This edit, this edit, this edit, this edit,this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit and this edit have been described as vandalism, defacement, destruction etc. and undone. Happy New Year. YSSYguy (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Would the article benefit from semi-protection for a while? Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think 'no' - he's probably autoconfirmed now. The account is clearly only in existence to troll me, what with his bullshit claims of my supposedly-terrible edits (on just one article mind you, all of my similar edits at other articles remain untouched - indeed I regularly receive 'thanks' notifications), his pretending that he is being wronged, and his claiming of pure editing motives supposedly acting to protect the encyclopaedia from me; and I will open an SPI in due course. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

LaMia Flight 2933
Hey i was trying to incorporate Sfn for that prelimnary report, but i couldn't be successful and figure out the problem. Hence i reverted with this edit. Not intended to disrupt the structure of article. Sorry for that, my bad --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 19:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No dramas; cheers YSSYguy (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Askari Aviation
Hello YSSYguy. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Askari Aviation, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguous advertising. Thank you.  So Why  21:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Iberia article
The article is not a collection of images is structured and there are no spaces, your version looks uneven. First debated on the talk of the article. The current version is in bad condition. Is better debating it, thanks.--87.218.80.49 (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you start using the talk page instead of warring?--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 14:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm asking myself, why the massive deletion of images is not proposed at the talk before the edition? --87.218.80.49 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The edits of yours are ones that have been reverted several times.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 22:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suggest both of you to stay away from the article for a while and to discuss your differences in the article's talk page. I've already asked for the article to be fully protected due to the ongoing warring from you both.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 16:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "The edits of yours are ones that have been reverted several times." By the same person (YSSYguy), the same could be said of YSSYguy. My edits have not reverted until he and his war arrived-- 87.218.80.49 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I also reverted you once and thence you continued with your several undos without further explanations at the article's talk.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 16:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding recent edit on Pakistan International Airlines
Hi! Hope you are having a Good Day! A question arose in my mind after your recent edit on Pakistan International Airlines page on 29 January 2017, that when you reverted the edits by Ateeb Kashif 123, you removed Airbus A330-300 and Boeing 737-800 which are taken on lease by PIA. I know that these aircraft aren't owned by PIA itself but when an aircraft is operating for an airlines so it should be mentioned on the page as, when lesse gets an aircraft by lessor, it is contributing of the lesse airlines. Abdulrafey97 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as that goes, the project style guide says not to include wet-leased aircraft. I know I had included those aircraft before, but I was reminded of the wet-lease aircraft situation by the recent edits to the article by MilborneOne. I understand that PIA wants to move the SriLankan A330s to dry lease, if and when that happens, then they will definitely belong in the fleet table. In the meantime, there is no harm in adding a paragpraph about how PIA is wet-leasing B738s short-term to make up the shortfall in capacity after the A310s were retired. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that! Thanks for reminding me about the edit done by MilborneOne. Abdulrafey97 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Air India postponement
Hey why don't you act like a true Wikipedian and enforce this change reported by Routesonline.com on IKA's page?

Air India Express launch date needs to be changed from '1 March 2017' to '26 March 2017'.

Source: http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/271136/air-india-express-revises-tehran-launch-to-late-march-2017/

88.112.102.15 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Concorde
I suggest you discuss the addition and removal of the photo of the Heathrow Concorde model on the article talk page. It seems a silly thing to edit war about.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day Nigel, I refuse absolutely to engage in a discussion under a talk page section with the title 'unexplained removal', with the message that was left there; that was not initiating a discussion. I left explanations in edit summaries three times; I am not going to buy into someone else's bullshit by engaging with him there. For the record, a two-fifths-scale mockup of a Concorde in British Airways colours is not a British Airways Concorde; adding a poor-quality image of said two-fifths-scale mockup to an article that already has three dozen images does not in any way aid a reader's understanding of the subject, it actually detracts from understanding, because it presents incorrect information. Even correctly captioned, the image is entirely superfluous. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash
G'day! I noticed that you started this article. I just wanted to point out that started a discussion about the crash's notability on the Accident Task Force page and thought you might like to add some thoughts there. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * however much they can dismiss it there against the good threshold requirements for their domain, I believe it should stay in mainspace as a Melbourne/Victoria?Australia for a number of reasons that I am sure the ATSB will come up with... JarrahTree 15:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Aurigny Comment
I was interested to note your revision of my entry on the above. Whilst I am happy to admit its may not be the best photo ever taken I feel that an image of the only jet that the company operates adds value to the article at least until a better one appears. Your comment 'not of good-enough quality to warrant keeping in the article' seems unduly harsh and does not help the article. Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * TPS Comment - you are aware User:Paste that we have a lot better image of G-NSEY already in the article so we dont really need another one. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to sound rude, but it's not a good image; it is so blurry that the registration can't even be read. If it was the only available image of the E190, maybe we would have it in the article, but it isn't. YSSYguy (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Request for Comment on Pima Air & Space Museum Article
I saw that you were involved in a little back-and-forth with another user about the Pima Air & Space Museum article a while back. I just made some major changes to the aircraft on display section that I have explained on the talk page, and I would appreciate if you could tell me what you think. Cheers! –Noha307 (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Beechcraft Super King Air edit war
Your recent editing history at Beechcraft Super King Air shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Cessna 208 Caravan
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
 * Well Marc, funny how you seem to feel free to edit-war while flinging out boilerplate warnings about edit warring (and remember, a person can't edit-war by him- or herself), or to not engage in discussion after your non-consensual changes. Much easier to make a dubious edit to blanket-undo something you don't like - even if it is an improvement - then make spurious claims of reverting the removal of "referenced" content as you remove referenced content, or "you can't have that image which illustrates something that is mentioned in the text, I think this image looks nicer, never mind that it doesn't aid understanding of the text". YSSYguy (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Cessna 208 Caravan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Fastjet Zimbabwe
You amended the format of the Destinations table for the Fastjet Zimbabwe article on 16 November last year, but unfortunately gave no explanation of your reasoning at the time. As it removes information usually given in such tables (eg the IATA airport codes) I think the change is unhelpful. (For an example of the standard layout, see Lufthansa destinations) Please let us know your rationale. Thank you! Carbonix (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Lufthansa list is the one in the non-standard layout and needs to be changed; see WikiProject Airlines/page content, which states, among other things, "Do not add IATA/ICAO airport codes" and "Do not use colors to identify certain types of destinations"; this second requirement is also to comply with MOS:COLOR. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

East Coast Jets Flight 81
I removed the supposed transcript of the CVR. Why? It is full of expletives and I can't recall a NTSB report ever out with such language in it. When a member of the cockpit uses adult language, symbols like # are put in its place. I think the whole section (which was unreferenced) was a hoax which also calls into question the article. Read the article carefully. The plane crashed short of the runway but the article also says 'the aircraft touched down on Runway 30'. Its confusing in IMHO and there is no link to the accident report....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * After I saw 's deletion of the transcript, I checked for an additional source. As one might expect, I didn't find a reliable online unexpurgated version, but a copy of the expurgated version is here.  There's also an unexpurgated animation of the accident on YouTube, which may have been a source for this article's creation.  So "hoax" may not be quite the right word.  However, there's no indication that the animation is a reliable (or necessarily accurate) source, and I agree with the deletion of the transcript.
 * I'm unclear about your further comment: I'm not aware of any reference to the plane crashing "short of the runway"; as I understand it, the plane touched down on the runway but then didn't decelerate as quickly as expected, leading to the pilot's ill-considered and ill-fated decision to try to take off again and go around. (The NTSB safety recommendation letter is here.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please, pay attention to Yamal Airlines, it is being abused by one bully. THANKS, regards. Gotech8 (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

airport flags
Working in and around the FAA teaches one thing ... pick your battles from those that matter. I would mentor any editor to update quality facts first and flags or non-facts way down the road. Yes, I stated flags do inform and add direct benefit to small airport data pages which have few departure destinations, but, I will lean toward good FAA data for runways, passenger ops, and based aircraft. Thanks, airports build cities, once a city builds an airport. AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

based aircraft
Hi YSSYguy, the standard for 'based aircraft' across all 5,000 plus airports has always included turbine engines with a C-1 fan, (ie turbo-props), in addition to reciprocating engines. Please do not change the standard phraseology. Thank you. AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

No offense to him but yes he does tend to argue quite a bit. Anyways the format used on every single of the 5,000 airport articles that lists based aircraft per FAA data types is fine. I'd understand if there were no jets based at the airport but at IMT where there is at least one jet based then there should be no problem for the reader to understand that single/multi-engine means prop and jet means jet. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The actual point is that turbo-props, which are turbines not recip prop engines, also fall into the single or twin FAA data. Caravans or King Airs do not fall into the jet data point. AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

FAA data for IMT, using standard phraseology, cut and paste from our data page - Based Aircraft Single Engine (SE):	22 Multi Engine (ME):	4 Jet          (J):	1 TOTAL FIXED WING: (SE + ME + J)	27 AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * AirOpsExecnPlt, we are writing for a wide audience, not just people within the aviation industry; you seem to be happy to be vague and ready to assume that a reader would understand that single/multi-engine means prop and jet means jet; and ready to insult other Users on the Talk pages of third parties (I am neither youthful nor under-educated and am not given to making 'youthful and under educated changes'). I am not happy to be vague and value accuracy over sloppiness, but if you want to assume that every reader will understand that "multi-engine" means "more than one engine but those that have propellers only, not including helicopters or jets", fill your boots. YSSYguy (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The Australian
Do you have a subscription to the online edition of The Australian? Mjroots (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No I don't sorry; what do you need? YSSYguy (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Story re Australia removing cladding from tower blocks in wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. Have shouted at article talk page. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Really enjoy your photos!
Great photos!! Thanks for sharing them. AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit Stalking
Sir/Madame please stop your edit stalking activity i am trying to make wikipedia a better place and if you continue to go on this path it will have severe consquences on your ability to make wikipedia a better place. If you wish to talk this out please feel more than welcome to leave a mesage on my talk page, or i will have to let an admin know. have a nice day/night Jkd4855 (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Clever Jkd4855; claim that I am stalking you, claim to be aggrieved, try to claim the high ground. Well never mind, you can't do anything about the edit histories of Pakistan International Airlines Flight 661 and Mahan Air destinations, showing who is really stalking whom. Get in touch with as many admins as you think necessary to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy, I really couldn't give a pile of foetid dingos' kidneys. YSSYguy (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

ok, how about this we just stay away from each other what is there stays for now but, next time i see any of your work i will not touch it and i would ask you to do the same thing does that sound agreeable?Jkd4855 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's really quite simple - don't add flagicons against Wikipedia policy and everything will be fine. I also removed the wikilink you added because the article that was linked had to do with US constitutional law, not the use of a facility by the civilian population. YSSYguy (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

so you are aware the airport project guidelines say that you are not obliged to follow them, so i will take that as a no and i do accept the link revert Jkd4855 (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am well aware that it is not compulsory to follow the airport project guidelines, but I am not removing the flagicons based on what the airport project guidelines say, I am removing them in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which takes precedence. YSSYguy (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

yes i have read it, it says that they should be "Generaly Avoided"" not always avoided Jkd4855 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have anything better to do?
can you offer me an reason as to why you have been constantly stalking my edits I go to my contributions list and I see that you have taken the time to stalk all my edits please stop this activity Jkd4855 (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Please stop making disruptive edits. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. please stop constantly tracking editors myself included. Jkd4855 (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Surrender
fine i will try to make higher quality edits but i do ask for you to not be looking over my shoulder, sorry if i offended you or made you mad no hard feelings Jkd4855 (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

YSBK flights
Hello, You may remember a while back that we got into a dispute over the necessity of having charter airlines mentioned under Airlines and destinations on the Bankstown Airport article. Recently, Airly launched their JetShare app, which allows for private jet flight booking to and from BWU. You can read about it on Business Insider here. As I am now a more experienced Wikipedian, I thought it would be logical to ask you whether it should be featured under "Airlines and destinations," or remain under "Other operators." I would put it on the Bankstown Airport talk page, however that does not seem terribly active. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Improve List of airlines of India
Hello, YSSYguy, I am pleased to request you to improve the list of airlines of India. It will be improved just like the List of airlines of Thailand. The operational list should be split into 3 categories; Commercial, Charter and Cargo. External links hub and type are not needed but to be replaced by notes and images jpg files. Next, the article needs to be split and the split part is for creating the defunct airline list of India which is named "List of defunct airlines of India". People hate how it looks now, but I can't edit cause I only have a mobile phone. I am not the boss of you but I would like to request you to do that please. The missing airlines in the list are Jagson Airlines and Alliance Air.

Reply at this line:

Thank you, Serjinh81, 16:19. 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Last warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You should READ and UNDERSTAND first both articles. It is not the same content: A superficial/trivial (functional) description of underground hangars. List of different states that have or have used underground hangar's. Differences in the different buildings are not explained. Take-off took place on conventional runways. Detailed description with all the functions of a specific project. Defined types of aircraft, defined state/country and only that state. Take-off run was provided in the protected facility.
 * Underground hangar
 * Caverned airfield

You make the redirection with the assertion that both have the same subject. So you let it, with the redirection, disappear. But on the same time delete the only sentence, in Underground hangar, that mentioned this project. Some might think it's evil intention of you..... Head of State (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Once again drongo, the redirect IS NOT TO THE UNDERGROUND HANGAR ARTICLE, IT IS TO THE AIRCRAFT CAVERN ARTICLE. The aircraft cavern article, which has been in existence gor several years, HAS THE SAME SUBJECT AS THE ARTICLE YOU CREATED. Now if you cannot comprehend that, I suggest that you stop making threats about pulling triggers of guns that are pointed at my head (as you did at the Talk page of caverned airfield), stop wasting my limited free time, and go off somewhere and play quietly with your toys. YSSYguy (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the only person who can wasting your limited free time is. YOU..Not me. You had provoked the escalation. You have a long record as an unfriendly, rude person... (drongo).So people react equal to you. How I react to you? How does Howicus behaves? How I react to Howicus behaves?  Think about this my friend.. I hope this disput is now over.Head of State (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop editing
Your recent editing history at Mahan Air destinations shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --W.nimanimaei (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Question
why should 1966 Air New Zealand crash should be merged? ThePoi (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Mahan Air destinations. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

September 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Air India, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Freightcar2 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, that you allege I changed content without citing when it was you who changed content that was supported by reliable sources to information that was supported by....what exactly? Nothing, according to the article. If you want to change a date from 2018 to five years later, you need to back it up with a reliable source instead of just proclaiming that you speak the truth and expecting nobody to contest it. YSSYguy (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hyphens
There is no need to insert hyphens after adverbs that end in "ly", as in the Air New Zealand article. See MOS:HYPHEN, which states "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)". Happy editing! Chris the speller  yack  16:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Mahan Air destinations
I am sorry if you get upset from my message on Mahan Air destinations Talk page. Just I have a question: Why the destinations map should not be in the article? The map can be useful for the reader of article. W.nimanimaei (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, I am not upset; and the map may not be accurate. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Fly Divine
Hi, I presume adding a lone extra link to the article is'int violating any policies and in my knowledge is not over linking. Maybe keeping it there will just add some content to the article from the Madhya Pradesh Article.-- Bingo bro  (Chat)  14:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Simplifly Deccan
Hello. Please can you comment on the Request for Move discussion on Talk:Simplifly Deccan?? Thanks Trinidade (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring again!
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of aircraft of the Philippine Air Force. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - FOX 52 (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * , it takes two to edit war; the real question is: why are you edit-warring to undo good edits that conform to guidelines, that fix mistakes and that add sourced and accurate information? It’s getting to the stage where all I am doing is undoing your vandalism. YSSYguy (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why won't you discuss on the talk page? You've been blocked twice, have you not learned anything? FOX 52 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You have started a discussion here; please answer the question as to why you are edit-warring to undo good edits, I have explained my edits in summaries and again here, you have not. I can point to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines as well as the English-language grammar rules that have guided my edits; and the US DoD itself states that the PAF has taken delivery of two Caravans this year. It seems to me that you haven’t even bothered to look at what I and others have added to the list, otherwise why are you edit-warring to remove that information? You have no reason for your actions that I can see other than “this is how I want the list to look”, which really isn’t a reason at all. YSSYguy (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you William, Merry Christmas to you; 31°C at 10:00 where I am. I did have a cold Christmas once, in Denmark 25 years ago. I’d like to experience a white Christmas, if only so that I can hear Christmas carols in a context-appropriate environment 😎 Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited OneJet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/OneJet check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/OneJet?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) 11:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Air Force of Bosnia and Herzegovina
I reverted your edits to the Air Force and Anti-Aircraft Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina as it made it more confusing than ever. -FOX 52 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What was confusing, and why undo the reference formatting? Why did you make the aircraft inventory a sub-section of the Air Bases section? YSSYguy (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Philippine Air Force
 What's wrong with my edit? Onhigan (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sydney Airport bikie killing
Hi YSSYguy, I was wondering if you thought the edit here, removing this incident from the page entirely, is the correct course to take? I note the editor has removed it before and another editor restored it here.

Nb FYI "Mahmoud “Mick” Hawi", the then Comanchero President sentenced over the death in the brawl, has just today:
 * "... been shot outside a south Sydney gym causing him to suffer a cardiac arrest. Police and ambulances are at the scene."

Regards, 220  of  Borg 03:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Soviet plane registration
Hi,

I noticed you changed the tail number on Aeroflot Flight 3843 - do you have a source for this? I don't want to start an edit war. The planes clearly wore CCCP, which albeit in Cyrillic script also contains letters in Latin script. No other countries used Cyrillic script on their planes as far as I can tell and the CCCP- prefix is listed repeatedly:   SportingFlyer (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Actually I'm going to go ahead and revert it for now... the source with the tail number (aviation-safety.net) has the CCCP- prefix. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The footnote is self explanatory and as I said in my most recent edit summary, using "CCCP" is a common mistake. I do not understand what you mean by "CCCP, which albeit in Cyrillic script also contains letters in Latin script", but the Latin for Cyrillic "CCCP" is "SSSR". The Russian name for Moscow is 'Moskva', which in Cyrillic is (more-or-less) "Mockba". I can equally add several citations for Soviet Union aircraft registrations being "SSSR-xxxxx". YSSYguy (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I can read Cyrillic. Why is it a common mistake? The source uses CCCP-, several directories use CCCP-, and CCCP would be a valid code in Latin script. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct that "CCCP" would be a valid code in Latin script, but the actual assigned registration prefix was "SSSR". It is a common mistake because it's - well, common. Very common actually. English-language books about Soviet aviation written by Russians use "SSSR" for registrations. Russian-language texts use "CCCP", it is impossible to write "SSSR" as Russian and have it mean something, and "SSSЯ" is not correct either. YSSYguy (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Didnt see this before I reverted but last time I looked at this the letters "CCCP" in latin were actually allocated by ICAO. This has come up before so I will see if I can find a reference. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an FAA source which refers to the ICAO Document. http://tfmlearning.fly.faa.gov/Publications/atpubs/CNT/4-1.htm MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well there you go then, I guess that the books in English written by Russians showing "SSSR-" are wrong. YSSYguy (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect it was a fudge by ICAO as the soviets were not going to change to using a latin script despite the rules they said hey we will just accept CCCP as being latin and life moves on. MilborneOne (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Rollback
Apologies for that, screen jumped just as I was trying to check a diff. Have reverted myself. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Ryan kirkpatrick and GHH111
I see that you have reversed edits by GHH111 because he/she is considered a sockpuppet for Ryan Kirkpatrick. So I'm learning about that issue. I see that Ryan kirkpatrick is listed in the page for sockpuppets but GHH111 is not. Shouldn't the latter appear too, if the process is correct?--Gciriani (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gciriani, I am anticipating the outcome of the process. It is obvious to me that this is Ryan and there was another issue with the image in the SW 1380 article - it was a screenshot, which means that it is quite poor quality. In addition, I don't believe it aids a reader's understanding of the subject, as all it shows is a bunch of guys standing around an aircraft tug that is connected to a blue aircraft in the background - the engine isn't really visible. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Norwegian Air Shuttle
You have reverted my edit on the Norwegian Air Shuttle page. I deleted the advert warning because it is normal on Wikipedia that airline pages have list of awards receaved. A few examples:

...and I can give you dozens of examples of airline articles in which Sections containing similar information have either been removed entirely as being not notable and overly promotional, or never included; perhaps you think that British Airways, Qantas, Avianca, Hawaiian Airlines, Lufthansa, Emirates, Etihad, American Airlines, Japan Airlines, Ethiopian Airlines, LATAM Chile, Singapore Airlines, Air New Zealand and KLM have never received any awards? YSSYguy (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All Nippon Airways, Cathay Dragon], Garuda Indonesia, Jet Airways, Scandinavian Airlines, airBaltic, Finnair, Turkish Airlines, Royal Jordanian, WestJet Mortyman (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Premature born baby is still a life
I know. My son was born at 28.5 weeks and died the next day. The fatalities total is either 7 and 4 equals 11 or 8 and 4 equals 12. The one source says a baby was born and 12 passengers. Any other conclusion comes under WP:OR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me make a really good point. There are other aviation disasters, the 9-11 crashes, PSA Flight 1771 where there was dead flight crew and or passengers before the plane crashed. We count those persons in the fatalities total even though the crash didn't kill them. We don't know what happened with the child (and there is no way of knowing) but we have a flight with 12 fatalities on board....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Just an observation (without a reliable source) that the article on her mother treats the baby as stillborn but I am not sure with what was probably the foresenics of the day how they new if the baby was stillborn or not as I suspect all onboard were badly burnt. Contempary sources show that the accident has 11 fatalties, perhaps we just need to add a note somewhere. (I did raise this for discussion on the talk page) MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The source for the baby being stillborn hardly qualifies as a WP:RS. How's anyone to know? Nobody on board survived. The mother did go on board pregnant and a child was born sometime between departure and the crash....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite so - all we can say for certain is that the baby was born. YSSYguy (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Reason for revert?
It's nice to explain reverts, ex.. It's not like it is vandalism. This fact may not belong in the lead, but cultural significance for Korea is a fact of possible encyclopedic value. We should not WP:BITE the newbies by just removing their contribs without at least trying to tell them what's wrong and how they could do it better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Soviet Aviation Tack Force invite (air crashes
I noticed all your articles on air crashes you created and others you significantly expanded and was wondering if you would please consider joining the Soviet aviation task force and write some of our missing articles on Soviet air crashes that are not yet in English. Due to censorship of crashes in the Soviet Union they weren't covered in the news in English when they happened and only after a bulk of major incidents were declassified all at one did we learn about the extent of air safety problems in the USSR, but most (not all) material remains in Russian because the topics have "expired" in the English media, with some major cases dating back to the 60's barely having English paragraphs. While some Wikipedians think there are no more "low-hanging fruit" in the area of air crashes, there are actually very many left to be translated from Russian. It's not very hard to create these articles, and even if you don't have any Russian skills at all you can still create infoboxes and a few basic paragraphs in a sandbox (and then you ask me or someone else to write the rest). We have dozens of articles that are well above meeting notability guidelines on our project to-do list so don't hesitate to write a few! To join the project, just add your name to the participants list and add the userbox to your page. Thank you, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion you may be interested in
I messed up the ping, so you might like to comment at WT:AV re the recent ground collision at Istanbul. You've edited at least one of the three articles affected. Mjroots (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, Hong Kong, South Korea
Please discuss at the relevant talk pages before you try to force through your point of view. Thank you. 210.0.147.114 (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Piss off - is that "mother tongue" enough for you? The message at the top of my User page is for the likes of you. YSSYguy (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Native English speakers won't challenge whether Bermuda, Greenland, Guam, New Caledonia or the Cayman Islands are countries or not. And again please mind your language and be civil. 210.0.147.114 (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, they have varying statuses, but none of them are countries either. Now piss off, lest I start to become tetchy. YSSYguy (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please be civil. This isn't China. 218.188.39.201 (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but Hong Kong is. You've been banned, no matter how many times you trot out another sockpuppet. Buy a clue and leave. oknazevad (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Sky Gates Airlines
Hello YSSYguy. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Sky Gates Airlines, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is probably not the same as the old article. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

About the RfC at Airline Destinations
Can you please don't force through the ongoing discussion about whether Hong Kong and Macau is listed as under China, the jurisdiction is different, and the point is: You need to go through border control of you need to go in between Mainland China/Hong Kong/Macau. It makes sense that it is not in the same jurisdiction.-- 1233 Talk 12:17, 30 June 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. Deryck C. 15:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello YSSYguy. If you don't respond to the complaint, you are risking a block. There seems to be a long-running dispute as to how Hong Kong ought to be identified in lists of airline destinations. Here, for example, you change 'Hong Kong' to 'China' without leaving any edit summary and without discussing on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You've been warned as a result of the complaint. You are risking a block if you revert again between China and Hong Kong on airline destination lists unless you get prior consensus for your version on a relevant talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:North Houston Airport aerial view.JPG
You uploaded or restored, File:North Houston Airport aerial view.JPG, but for various reasons did not add an information block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Wikipedia needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.

If it's entirely your own work, please include own in the relevant source field, amend the information added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers. You can also add  and an  to the media by uploader or presumed_self tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

If it's not entirely your own work, then please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or own, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers.

Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log].

It's okay to remove or strike this message once the issue has been resolved :).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also - File:Strother Field aerial view.JPGShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Air Vanuatu Flight 241
I've started the Air Vanuatu Flight 241 article, but This potential source is blocked in the EU due to the GDPR being applied here. Hopefully you are able to access it and expand the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific Fleet
G'day Mate, Would like to know the reason behind of you removing the engine info on the page. Cheers, El — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhui (talk • contribs) 03:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We don’t list the engine types in airline fleet tables. YSSYguy (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Partial revision of 877793705 on List of Virgin America destinations
Ciao; some of the comments on blue links I can understand, particularly for countries and states, however I cross-checked with a few other destination table articles (United, American, and Virgin Atlantic) and WP:Airlines/page content (for the destination table format without start/end dates, with hub/terminated label templates for cells, and included terminated destinations in the same table as they could be manually sorted away), before submitting the edit. These examples utilized blue links as well as ordered the destinations alphabetically by country/state by default (and merged to the same cells where common), rather than by city (which could also be manually sorted, if desired). I'm wondering what direction for consensus could be reached with the article, since all that was retained was the first paragraph? Thank you. ChainChomp2 (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification of AFD
Hiya, you were previously involved with the article KC International Airlines. Just wanted to know I had nominated the article for deletion at Articles for deletion/KC International Airlines (2nd nomination). Please voice your opinions there. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)