User talk:Aviationwikiflight

Your edit to Skol Airlines Flight 9375 has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Frost.xyz (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted one edit about Saudia 163 bing in Mayday in future, so the thing is Saudia 163 is confirmed on mayday, so please dont revert it ok? thanks Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's been confirmed but you have not provided a source. I have reinstated the fact that it will be covered but for now, I've just added "citation needed". Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

On English WP, a proposed deletion tag may not be re-added (except to the biography of a living person) once it has been objected to (as this one was).

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Proposed deletion before using the mechanism.

Also, PROD may not be used for any remotely controversial deletions.

The correct venue for most deletions is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Just FYI, in my time I have nominated dozens of articles and other pages for deletion, and not once have I ever used PROD to do it.

Lastly, please carefully read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which explains some important things one should be aware of before nominating articles.

Well, now you know.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of MattChatt20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're using proxies and web hosts. If you turn off your VPN, you stand a better chance of being unblocked. Trying to hide your IP address just makes you look more guilty. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I live in a country where I have to use a VPN to use the internet. There are some vpn connections that are IP banned so I have to use a certain connection to edit on wikipedia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could consider a temporary IP block exemption while the user puts through an email request for a permanent one per the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY? Daniel Case (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:deadline - we can wait for the request to come through. I will put the unblock request on hold. The results of IPECPROXY should take care of the rest, eh? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the current status of my block? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Do you have any thoughts here? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I've already posted. This user is a likely sock puppet using proxies. If they want to be unblocked, they'd have to stop using proxies and show us their real IP address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. @Aviationwikiflight: Have you read and attempted to resolve via WP:IPECPROXY? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to resolve it via WP:IPECPROXY but i haven't gotten a response. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that I have as stated above is that using a VPN is the only way to use the internet. Some VPN connections work better than others so sometimes I do change the connections. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: This is Ticket:2023101510001873 if you want to have a look? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an OTRS account. I have no idea what the above (on-wiki) discussion is even about. If this ticket is about asking for IPBE, the answer should be trivially easy. Blocked editors don't need IPBE – it would do them no good. If the ticket is about the block, it should be either on-wiki or at UTRS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Sorry. Don't have (or want) OTRS/VRT. Perhaps you could unblock if you think it's warranted. On the other hand, we might need to just evaluate the non-sensitive information. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'd love to unblock, but damn. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Do you have a master that you are connecting this account to? The CU data shows proxy use, but no strong overlap with another account. CU data makes the reason for using a VPN plausible. I am very tempted to unblock here. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sock master is listed in the block log, on the user page, in the {{uw-block}} template, and in the unblock request itself. I don't really know why you're so convinced this is not a sock puppet if you're not even aware who the suspected master is. But I'm getting a bit tired of being constantly pinged about this block, so do whatever you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mind, just to clarify what I did wrong, what evidence do you have that ties my account to user Mattchatt20?

I am new to wikipedia so prior to me getting messaged about my PROD violation and copyright violation, I thought that what I was doing was right. I had read various guidelines but my knowledge on how to use and/or interpret them was limited. Obviously, know, I do understand that the violations that I commited were dumb.

But what I don't understand is that for the past few months, I have made numerous edits, some helpful, some controversial. For me, in my opinion, it would seem dumb and a waste of time to create an account, make edits to improve articles, some reverted for which I understand the reasons, just to throw it away because of these violations (if these were the reason for my block).

And just to add one more time, even though this makes me look guilty to you, I live in a country where using a VPN is needed, normal internet connection doesn't let me access google.

I just hope that I could go back to editing articles and improving them because seeing some articles that look in a "bad state" is just honestly annoying and sad.

Hope you have a nice day.

-Aviationwikiflight Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Totally out to sea. can you light me a beacon to see my way? accept/decline/other? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: What do you think? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NJP seems pretty confident here, but they also seem to be done with this. I'd say it's up to you. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me!? Quelle horreur! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There... now you don't have to make the decision, DFO. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting the unblock request :) .

Finally, I just have two questions;

Do I need to get an IP block exemption to continue editing on wikipedia?

And lastly, does the box stating that I've been indefinitely banned need to be removed or not? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the IP block exemption. You are now free to cleanup your talk page as you see fit. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the clarifications. Have a nice rest of your day. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should email the checkusers for a WP:IPBE. checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the lack of sourcing for that death toll. It's odd that the best information comes from Hawaii. I've found some evidence of deaths in Chile, but very few. Mikenorton (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you moving Icelandic air crashes articles away from their WP:COMMONNAME? Alvaldi (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRITERIA and WP:AVTITLE, the format of: <year> Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash is way more recognizable than having Héðinsfjörður or Glitfaxi in the title.

To english speakers, I don't think Héðinsfjörður or Glitfaxi are commonly recognizable names. Using the format that I've put per WP:AVTITLE, we know the year, what airline was involved, we know the accident aircraft + what happened. The title of the two moved pages can easily be typed, they are more precise, it is consistent with other plane accident articles and there is just the right amount of sufficient information in the title for someone to understand what the article is about.

Per Collins Dictionary, the definiton of air crash is a a crash involving one or more aircraft so the use of the term "air crash" in the title is therefore incorrect. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right on the point with the term "air crash", that is a translation error on my part. The term "Plane crash" would be the correct one.

That said, both of these accidents get their notability from significant Icelandic sources where they are best known as Flugslysið í Héðinsfirði, which in english translates to The Héðinsfjörður plane crash, and Glitfaxaslysið which is probably best translated as The Glitfaxi accident. While I don't mind making minor descriptive changes, such as adding the year, what should not be changed is removing the location from title the Héðinsfjöður crash and the plane name from the Glitfaxi crash, as that is what they are known by.

Even WP:AVTITLE, which should be noted is neither an official Wikipedia guideline or policy and doesn't override anything in WP:COMMONNAME, does state that if the event has acquired a popular name, that name should be used. Alvaldi (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better then, to keep both titles like for example on the page of The Smolensk Air Disaster? For example we can either name the article with my format or your format, you choose, then on top of the infobox, we can insert both titles so:

The Héðinsfjörður plane crash

1947 Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash

Glitfaxaslysið

1951 Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash

Is this format acceptable? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objections having the "19## Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash" as a secondary title for those particular articles as long as the main title refers to what they are commonly known by. Generally, notable crashes in Iceland become known by the location where they happened but occasionally the name of the plane involved (though that seems to have been more common in the early years of flight in Iceland when there were fewer planes in the country). I did ask the creator of the Héðinsfjörður crash their opinion on this matter and they've started a discussion about it on Talk:1947 Flugfélag Íslands DC-3 crash so maybe it is better if we continue the discussion there. Alvaldi (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviationwikiflight! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. McSly (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment "The phrase does not state that UIA752 was an accident". The sentence says that that 1907 is the third deadliest accident, which means that the two deadlier crashes were also accidents. C5mjohn (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to go about this since using the term "incident" wouldn't be correct since an incident is an event in which no fatalities occurred and damage to the aircraft is limited. An incident would also refer to a deliberate action that resulted in the plane crashing. UIA752 is also currently listed in the "Aviation accidents and incidents" category. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boeing 777X, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. 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) 17:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, I'm starting this discussion on your talk page where you'll see it. As far as your edit summary, Per the summary parameter: Brief summary of the occurrence. State the fate of the aircraft, if not obvious from the title (e.g. crashed, disappeared etc) and any relevant circumstances. Accident causes are often several and complex: they should be left for the article body. Cherry-picking some of them for the summary (e.g. pilot error) is likely to breach neutrality. See discussion., that edit was made unilaterally by Deeday-UK on November 2, 2023, citing a discussion at Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#Accident cause. As you can see, the only person even mentioning the removal of causes was Deeday-UK, so there is no history of a project consensus. This past February, when Deeday-UK was making changes to other articles similar to yours, I contacted them at their talk page User talk:Deeday-UK#Your edit to US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211 to challenge a similar edit that he had made and to ask where this "project consensus" that they were citing existed, and they only mentioned that template talk page. Another talk page watcher also joined in that conversation and stated their opinion that that discussion is not the basis of a consensus. If you think there's widespread support for the removal of accident causes from the infobox summary (I don't), then by all means start a discussion about it, but it should be at a place where people actually watch, like WP:AVIATION or something like that, not the talk page of a template that nobody looks at. I have removed that template help text that Deeday-UK added for now, and made a note at the template help document talk page. I also have pinged that user since I have been mentioning them here. Please self-revert those changes and start a discussion. I'd appreciate a ping when you do. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for pointing it out, I wasn't aware that this wasn't an official consensus.

I've started a discussion regarding this "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence: Should the summary parameter include causes?" to see what's the general opinion on this matter at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation

And just one question, when you say:

Please self-revert those changes and start a discussion.

what do you mean by self-revert these changes? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already started removing these unilateral and undiscussed summary changes. I would recommend seeking an official consensus before making such mass changes. Cutlass^Ciera 23:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi regarding your statement at AfD the nom cannot vote, is this true? Their opinion is usually clear in the nomination, but I'm not sure there is a prohibition against posting in the thread as well. CMD (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In discussing articles for deletion (or other discussion types such as merge requests, split requests...), the original proposer can only cast one vote, which is their reasoning regarding a deletion proposal. The proposer can obviously still comment, they can reply to votes cast by other users but voting after they have opened a discussion is not allowed and since they are suggesting a deletion, repeating it should be avoided. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody casts any votes, they are discussions. It is common for example to see "Delete as nom" or similar, so that guide is not entirely accurate. CMD (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe stating "Delete as nom" could pass but, "the nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this." Replying or commenting is what should normally be done if you've already voted (whilst changing your vote is allowed). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the wikitiquette, and while there are a lot of things editors should do, that they should does not mean other editors are meant to police this at its strictest interpretation. CMD (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not to the strictest but the user in question was repeatedly doing it across multiple discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviationwikiflight -- I see you removed many citations from the ATR 52 article here: [1]. What this means is that there are now a stack of facts in that article that are now considerably distanced from their citation. In a static piece of writing, this wouldn't be a problem. However, here on Wikipedia, it means that there's every chance that in future, someone else will come and insert a new fact (and hopefully new citation) between the original fact and its far-removed citation. We end up with a fact that is now either effectively unsourced or appears to be attributed to the wrong source. I'd like to roll back this change, but wanted to get your thoughts first. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per WP:REPEATCITE, a source that is repeated multiple times in a paragraph does not require an inline citation for every mention unless there is a specific page number for a claim. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The example there is a very different in two ways:

• it's dealing with information that's already been cited. We've already established that the elephant is a mammal (3), so we don't need a citation every time we say that.
• wait until the end of the claim to add the cite. In the second sentence there, we don't need to cite source (4) three times within the same claim.

In the ATR52 article, each claim that you removed the citations from was a fresh, new claim that had not already been cited in the article. As you've left it now, the article has a lot of uncited claims in it. Therefore, I'll add the citations back. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "Project Consensus"? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 12:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "project consensus" that I'm referring to is on this discussion regarding as to whether the summary parameter in aircraft occurence infoboxes should contain summaries. Basically, a user with minimal consensus on the talk page decided to change the summary parameter to include "no causes" based on the fact that aviation accidents are usually complex and (over)simplifying the causes might be misleading. This change was recently reverted and I've started a discussion regarding this issue. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit here:

• Initial change (by me, as a result of an objection raised at FAC): [2] .
• Revert 1: [3] .
• Revert 2: [4] .
• Revert 3: [5].

That was why I left a notification about the policies about edit warring on that user's talk page, as suggested at Wikipedia:Edit warring#What to do if you see edit-warring behavior. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Revert 1" cannot be considered a revert since they were adding something to the article and not reverting a revision to their preference.

"Revert 2" is a revert but the fact that it happened nearly a month later doesn't hold much weight.

"Revert 3" could be considered a revert since they are adding another image with a possibly incorrect tag but they're not restoring it to a previous version since it was a different image.

For it to be considered edit-warring, most of the time, the user would have to breach the three-revert rule. In other cases, the three-revert rule isn't needed for it to be considered edit warring. I feel like a multi-level warning template would've been better, like using uw-ewsoft at first, since they weren't exactly consistent reversions and it would've warned them at least once to not engage in what appeared to be edit warring. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're looking very closely at the diffs I've provided above. In any event, I thought it would be nice to inform the user about WP's policies about edit warring, since they do not appear to be familiar with them. But since you've reverted my notification, perhaps you can explain it to them better than I did? RecycledPixels (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like the person not paying enough attention to the diffs is me, as the third was a completely different picture. My apologies, I was wrong above. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt explain removing categories in the redirect page of Air Europa Flight 045, that's why I reverted your edit. Filipinohere (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a basic redirect (see WP:R#Editing the source directly), a simple #REDIRECT [[___]] tag is sufficient. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You are right about "Removing an image of an aircraft is not censorship, hence why this is an inappropriate warning". Except the fact that we aren't talking about an image. This was the edit I'm talking about. As you can see, the user censored a word, therefore I reverted his edits and gave him a warning. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, you are only partly correct. They may have censored a swear word which, I agree can be offensive to some, whilst also adding Crash Sound and Impact and replacing the Stall warning with the official name of the system, CAWS, on the CVR recording which can be useful. Instead, you should've just partially reverted their edit by uncensoring the word in question by explaining what was wrong with their edit instead of completely reverting it. The tag wass unnecessary since it was only a minor change. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2006 Kenyan Air Force Harbin Y-12 crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Star.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to bring Dreameditsbrooklyn to WP:AN/I for WP:CIR. Unless you disagree, I'll start the process within the hour. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've decided against AN/I at this time. I will still be watching this very closely and may change my mind if their behavior gets any worse. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the behaviour continues or worsens , I won't be against bringing them to AN/I but for now, I suggest we move forward and just see what happens. If nothing changes, well then I guess AN/I could and probably will be the way forward. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ZLEA: After two more edits were performed on 2024 Saurya Airlines Bombardier CRJ200 crash and Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283, [6] [7], are we approaching a report or should we wait if further similar edits are performed? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should bring this to WT:AATF first. I had discovered this discussion when looking for evidence the first time around. I did not notice any clear consensus forming, but the context of aviation was notably excluded from the discussion as "accident" and "incident" are industry terminology. Hopefully a discussion at WT:AATF will reinforce that consensus and prevent further disruption. But if nothing else, it could serve as a paper trail if the behavior continues and we have to take this to AN/I. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this edit of yours is false. Let me explain: Spair Flight 3601 crashed soon after takeoff from Russia. But this statement "Flight 3601 tried to take off around 23:00, but when the engines were started, all electrical systems failed." needs no clarity. Why? Because this statement is said after "The electrical malfunction was repaired and the plane took off at 00:10 on August 19, 1996 heading for Malta." That basically means that the pilots turned on the engines, electrical systems failed, it was then 'fixed' and then the airframe took off. Your reasoning "This sentence is confusing. How did Spair Airlines Flight 3601 manage to take off if all electrical systems failed?" doesn't make sense because its implying the pilots tried to takeoff without electrical power yet it was 'fixed' after and the sentence after doesn't mention takeoff, it mentions repairs then takeoff. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably missed the part where it said they repaired the electrical systems, but the sentence still doesn't make sense. Attempting to take off implies that they've already taxied all the way to the runway, and so as the sentence says, just then, they attempted to start the engines. Does that mean that somehow, without the engines, Flight 3601 managed to go all the way from the gate to the runway without engine power or did they attempt to start the engines at the gate and the electrical systems failed? If it is the latter, then the phrasing is wrong. Maybe the wording of the tag could've been more elaborated on but even then, the sentence is still confusing. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see. I'll try to fix the wording and then I'll remove the warning. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I use infobox plane1 on articles as US Airways Flight 1549 or American Airlines Flight 77 or other articles have Infobox aircraft occurrence use wreckage photo first . User @Midori No Sora reverted my changes on such articles. I think use plane1 then the image will be in a more visible position. Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Tô Ngọc Khang As Midori No Sora said in their edit summary, the "plane1" parameters are used only when more than one aircraft were involved. Both US Airways Flight 1549 or American Airlines Flight 77 involved only one aircraft, so it is improper to use the "plane1" parameters. Any further images of the aircraft, including pre-accident photos, can be included in the article body. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of what ZLEA said is mentioned here. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the change does sound like a good idea but I would advise to maybe first discuss this on an appropriate talk page such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation or Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	thanks for being so kind to the aviation community and helping a ton with the deletionist articles! :3 Lolzer3000 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it and have a nice rest of your day! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you too! :D Lolzer3000 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omg :3 Grffffff (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He said it he said :3 Grffffff (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I was about to create the article for this flight using French & Italian wiki as a base to translate, but saw you drafted it, and didn't touch it for a month or so. Are you still working on it?

Mind creating it, so I can add the information from the Italian Wikipedia?

Cheers! --Global Donald (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding the draft, I'm still working it but it will take some time to finish it as I'm basically trying to cross reference the information from the Italian Wikipedia and the citations, as the references redirect you to the main page of the website instead of providing the actual news article, which is quite tedious if you ask me. If I'm still planning on expanding the draft which includes finalizing the accident section, and hopefully, if I find enough sources, start an investigation section along with a few other details that shouldn't take too long to include. Cheers! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aviationwikiflight

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username SafariScribe and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect 1958 Independent Air Travel Vickers Viking crasb, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 4 § 1958 Independent Air Travel Vickers Viking crasb.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|SafariScribe}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks a lot.

Basically regarding the redirect, which was recently closed, the move was an error on my part unintentionally typing "crasb" instead of "crash". If I had known that a speedy deletion template could've been used, I probably would have done so. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aviationwikiflight! I've created an article and you have significantly contributed to it and now, its appearance is now on the main page. Thank you very much for making this possible. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! It was quite a pleasure working on the article in efforts to expand it. I appreciate it a lot and I look forward in continuing to contribute in this area with you and multiple other editors. Cheers. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aviationwikiflight. I have a question. So I've been reading a lot of articles for possible grammar fixes but there is just one thing that confuses me. I've been reading articles such as this and this but literally almost 100% of the words are written in present tense yet this was all in the past. Before I correct them (or falsely edit them), are the articles written in present or past tense? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:TENSE, "use past tense only for past events [...]" but according to WP:ADL, something I didn't even know existed until a few weeks ago, "it should be written with the historical present tense" though this only applies to List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. There might need to be more discussion surrounding this matter to clarify what tense should be used for such articles, but for now, I think it might be better to keep the status quo and only change if there isn't much consistency within the article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here regarding consensus for use of RS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Regards, Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that linking a policy or guideline without even attempting to explain your reasoning isn't really helpful right? I understand what WP:RS is about and don't see a reason for you to link it. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because most RS and the title of the entry itself call it a crash, not an accident, which are two different words with sometimes significant differences in meaning. This revert also makes the title inconsistent with the copy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Touques_Airbus_AS350B_helicopter_crash&oldid=prev&diff=1245844290 Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has already been discussed multiple times, with the most recent discussion at Talk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283#Insistence on use of 'accident'. I have already expressed my opinion and have nothing else to add other than the need for you to gain consensus before making such changes. It is clear that there is no support to "deprecate" or hold in a lesser value the use of accident. Maybe there could be more discussion surrounding this topic but for now, you're really not doing anyone any favors by continuing to swap accident with crash. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do use the term accident. For example, the BEA investigation report. The wording we use is not dictated by a style guide used by some reliable sources, and using the exact same term over and over again is itself poor writing. Therefore, we should use the terms "crash", "accident", or whatever else reliable sources use to describe the event throughout the article. However, current consensus on aviation accident article layout is that the section itself should be titled "Accident". Feel free to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation if you want to change that consensus, but until then, the section titles should remain at the very least. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not modify the section title. I edited the prose in the body itself to be consistent with the title of the entry and with what most RS use. Also, consensus in a niche area of the project does not override RS, which generally go with crash for this incident. It is certainly an issue that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation is adhering to a terminology that consistently and increasingly conflicts with terminology used by most RS. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly an issue that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation is adhering to a terminology that consistently and increasingly conflicts with terminology used by most RS. Not most RS, only RS bound by the AP Stylebook which are arguably unreliable in determining the correct usage of the term "accident". It's not a coincidence that RS not bound by the AP Stylebook almost universally use the term "accident" as defined by the Convention on International Civil Aviation. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a similar case that has nothing to do with the AP Stylebook, just poor knowledge of terminology. Whenever referring to any paved surface of an airport, most news media tend to use the incorrect term "tarmac". Does one incorrect term render the entire source unreliable? No. Does that mean we should prefer that incorrect term even if most news media make the same mistake? Absolutely not. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and unfortunately most reliable news sources consistently use inaccurate terminology when covering topics about aviation. Sometimes it is because they simply don't understand the terminology, while other times it is because they are actively discouraged from using it. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor analogy because in many of these cases, crash is actually the better word to use than accident. See WP:Descriptor. Only use the term "accident" if a competent authority has concluded the event was accidental after a thorough investigation, and this finding is not controversial or contradicted by another authority, such as a court of law. Emphasis mine on "thorough" Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that this guideline applies to titling articles, not for what should be included in the article body, so your argument doesn't really hold water. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should inform the way we think about our use of language. But look, if you are insistent on adhering to a loaded word that violates NPOV and that frequently and increasingly conflicts with what RS use, I will spare us both the headache of changes as I come across existing articles in the aviation space (despite @ZLEA suggesting that we can and should use both)

I have met you for discussions about this repeatedly and respectfully. I appreciate that we disagree about these words, and I understand the basis of your argument. I just think it's concerning that either of you think this rises to the level of ANI as discussed above. Cheers Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem whatsoever with using the word crash and I'm ok with using both crash and accident. What I have a problem with is removing mentions of the word accident, insisting that the word accident should be held in a lesser value, even when people have disagreed with this stance. You've repeatedly stated the same argument over and over again, exhibiting what in my opinion ressembles WP:IDHT behaviour, and we're now going absolutely nowhere, so please, I suggest you "drop the stick" until the next time where we might have to rediscuss this topic. – Cheers. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some have disagreed. Others have also agreed that 'accident' violates NPOV and should be avoided. If you'd carefully read my latest message to you, I just explained how I plan to drop the stick and move forward. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your plan was/is to "drop the stick", why reiterate your points in a negative way? Anyways, I have nothing else to add other than what was previously stated. Cheers. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, in the article "Largest airlines in the world" you deleted the references of planespotters.net. Please note that this reference is not regarded to be unreliable per WP:RSP. WikiPate (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following multiple discussions, Planespotters.net was deemed to be unreliable. See: WP:PLANESPOTTERS; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]. It doesn't need to be listed at WP:RSP to be considered unreliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviationwikiflight is right. The (lack of) reliability of Planespotters.net has been discussed numerous times. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for compiling these discussion links. Clearly this is a repeated/perennial topic, so I added a summary of the most-significant discussions to WP:RSP#Planespotters. This should give them more prominence for general editors, and perhaps help reduce future arguments. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed WP:PLANESPOTTERS to redirect to the RSP listing. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The same has also been done for WP:Planespotters. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That should make things clearer instead of linking to a discussion without as much context. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. There is an editor called JKSX who keeps changing the word "accident" to "crash". He has done it on Boeing 737 MAX groundings and 2024 Kamchatka Mil Mi-8 crash articles. He's also reverted one of your edit. I've given him two warnings but he erased it in his talk page and because of him, I got the edit warring warning which is silly. Please help me here. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reverted the edits for now (which have just been reverted...) but they are new to Wikipedia so it might be better to assume good faith. I’ve opened a discussion at their talk page to discuss the issue. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the edit warring template might have been a bit much on my part. However both of yall were engaged in an (underwhelming) back and forth argument about who's right and who's wrong on your talk page. While I myself think that you were in the right, we still have to assume good faith (as Aviationwikiflight mentioned) in new editors to prevent from discouraging them from potentially being a net positive to the project. I will remove the warning (though you can do it yourself per WP:OWNTALK), and I wish a good day. fanfanboy (block) 22:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I reach disagreements like that, I sometimes just don't think right and make moves only an idiot makes. And yes, I probably should've went a bit easier on him. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good, we all make mistakes. And as I admitted earlier I was also partially in the wrong. Hope you have a good day :). fanfanboy (block) 22:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing links from planespotters.net without providing a more suitable reference. The tags ^{[better source needed]} and / or ^{[unreliable source?]} has to be used for these circumstances. A semi-sufficient source is still better than none as per our guidelines. Best regards. 2001:A61:1206:C601:11D7:77EB:8D5A:6CCB (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planespotters.net is an unreliable, self-published, user-generated source and is really not a reliable source. The reliability of the said source has already been determined as unreliable. As it is an unreliable source, I am well allowed to remove the citation, especially if unreliable. Per WP:CHALLENGE, "any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Whilst I am not going to remove the material, the ^{[citation needed]} tag will hopefully alert others that a reliable source is needed. There is no concrete rule that states ^{[better source needed]} should be used over ^{[citation needed]}. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you quoted clearly states to remove the content *together* with the unreliable source, not the source alone - therefore you violate our editing standards doing so. Either tag the sources as in need for replacement or remove the entire content (which might be considered vandalism). To resolve this issue is why the use of both tags is highly encouraged. The way you do it is very much unconstructive as it removes all remarks to where the content has originally come from, please refrain from doing so and use ^{[better source needed]} instead. Further changes will be undone and reported, e. g. for discussion at the aviation portal. 2001:A61:1206:C601:11D7:77EB:8D5A:6CCB (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an unconstructive way of editing nor does it “violate” editing standards. The source is clearly unreliable for the reasons stated above and Wikipedia should not contain such sources until it can be proven as reliable. The origin of such information is either unsourced or user-generated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is considered unreliable. The way you handle it still violates our policies though, including the one you quoted. Sources in need of replacement are to be tagged as explained (to "alert" other users, as you stated) or removed with the entire content. What you do can be considered vandalism and will be treated as such. 2001:A61:1206:C601:11D7:77EB:8D5A:6CCB (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, could you please cite the guidelines or policies that I’m supposedly currently violating? I’m currently unaware of such guidelines. It is not a requirement to remove the entire content nor is it a requirement to replace the removed source with another one. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) The guideline you quoted clearly states to remove the content *together* with the unreliable source, not the source alone No it doesn't. The only thing even remotely close to that in WP:CHALLENGE is the following (emphasis mine), "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups". Aviationwikiflight is under no obligation to replace unreliable sources after removing them, nor are they required to remove the now unsourced content in most cases. Their actions are neither unconstructive nor have they violated any editing standards. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aviationwikiflight. Do you think that we should replace current photo on infobox of China Airlines Flight 611 by this photo ? Thank you ! Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 Kursk offensive, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aviationwikiflight. I created Korean Air Lines Flight 642 (The accident of Korean Air Boeing 707 in 1976). Can you help me to improve this article ? Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tô Ngọc Khang: Even with the sources that I've found, I doubt this draft will get accepted. This at least has some coverage (search for "Korean Plane Crash" to find the section) and this too but there isn't enough continued coverage in secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the event that would warrant a standalone article. The event also lacks lasting effects or long-term impacts. Hopefully, if there exists more coverage of the event, this draft could get accepted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Singapore Airlines Flight 321 you reverted my edit saying that the aircraft is painted in the Star Alliance livery is unsourced, I have already put in my edit summary "shown in the picture" that it is, there's already a picture of the aircraft at the top which means there's already proof at the top, how is it still unsourced if there's already proof added before the information is? Metrosfan (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Metrosfan The photo only indicates that the aircraft was at one point painted in that livery. If you want to state that it currently wears the livery, you need to find a reliable source for it. On a side note, I'm not entirely sure the livery is relevant to the incident. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the image does show that the aircraft had a Star Alliance livery, there needs to be a reliable source that specifically states that the aircraft sported this specific livery on this specific flight. Besides that, I don't think the information is too relevant to the article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you added a notability template to Key Lime Air. What do you think about merging the article with Denver Air Connection? DAC now seems to be the public face of Key Lime. There are a whole slew of news reports on the Googles that mention Key Lime, but most of the reports directly concern DAC and mention Key Lime only in passing. Carguychris (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I would not be opposed to merging, both airlines don't seem to be notable enough for standalone articles to be written on them. I'm struggling to find any significant coverage relating to both airlines, with this news article being the best that I've found. Any thoughts? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now why there shouldn't be a cause on the EgyptAir article, but would it also apply for the Boeing 737 Max crashes? Thanks Cutlass^Ciera 05:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although we could benefit from a discussion in a centralized place, in my opinion, for both Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, I would keep the summaries as they are as they accurately describe the events in brief. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I cut-and-paste your deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Aéro-Frêt An-12 crash, with minor edits? I intend to AfD American Airlines Flight 102. Carguychris (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, feel free to do so. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Aviationwikiflight, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I also wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Enjoy the holidays and have a happy new year! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite agreement among multiple experienced editors and an overwhelming agreement among reliable sources, you've chosen to revert multiple editors, including myself at Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 to insert your preferred style for the entry. Please stop and meet us in the talk page. You can't continue to insert a word you prefer when there is a strong and ongoing disagreement about the use of the word among other contributors. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may have presented "compelling" evidence but as of yet, look at the talk page and tell me whether you see a consensus to swap the words. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow reliable sources. That's wikipedia policy. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is also a Wikipedia policy. I invite you to cite me a policy/guideline that says that we have to use the more commonly used word. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 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 noticeboards.
• 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. See [8] for context. Fantastic Mr. Fox 18:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Sorry for the disruption. Although you have also reverted multiple times so the same would also apply for you. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy his words and paste them on his talk page 210.3.50.94 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. guninvalid (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that this article will clearly be kept because an incident of this kind clearly meets the notability criteria, the essential point is that the notability tag is i entirely pointless it the article is at AfD. I do not see how anything in the edit summary could be construed as an attack; I am merely po9inting out that the basis of you editing in this case is ill-informed.TheLongTone (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that saying Get smart is a very constructive way of interacting with others. I'm not going to comment or argue on the contents and arguments of the AfD, but until the discussion reaches a point where there's only a snowball's chance in hell of success, I don't see the point in removing the notability tag since it states that the article may not be notable, and in the case of a "no consensus" close, the tag could likely be kept. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The snow is falling. One can tell a lot about editors about the names they choose.TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect more from an editor who has more than 41,000 edits than having to be told to stop making snarky comments. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As do the comments on their talk page.TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just here to troll, feel free to leave my talk page. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I like reading about Aeroflot Flight 11, it looks like a clear delete simply based on WP:V grounds. It's probably true, but nobody can point to a reliable source that proves that it ever happened. For now. BAAA-Acro is one of those sources that cause me to roll my eyes when I see it, but at the moment I can't remember why, aside from a simple sniff test, and I don't have the bandwidth to search for RSN or other discussions of why it's a worthless source. Can you refresh my memory? I'm surprised this point hasn't been made by now, and as much as I hate recommending the deletion of someone's work, I think it's more important to be verifiably right than it is to be right. I'll try to check back in tomorrow, this seems to be coming to a close soon. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CHITA.ru source does at least seem to somewhat prove its existence (although it seems to be the only one mentioning it). Looking through discussions, I haven't really found anything related to the baaa-acro.com other than flight number discrepancies and this thread on Talk:Aviation accidents and incidents § Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A) that somewhat questions its status. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work in reverting the persistently disruptive editor. I have blocked the account for two weeks. I've also partially blocked the IP address from that article until 15 March, including from logged-in editing. (I had previously blocked it anon-only, until 15 January.) If you see any more trouble from the same person, either on the same article or elsewhere, please feel very welcome to let me know, and I will consider extending either or both blocks. JBW (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW Hi. Thanks a lot. Just letting you know that we now have another IP taking over the job of the blocked user. 45.183.73.64 (talk · contribs) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased the block in 3 ways: I've extended it to the whole IP range 45.183.73.0/24 instead of just the one IP address; I've increased its length by a month; I've made it a total block rather than a partial block on the one article. The account hasn't edited since its block expired, and I've decided to leave it for now, but that will be subject to review if I become aware of even one unacceptable edit. (Let me know if you see any.) I've also semi-protected some articles for a while, though that may just result in their moving to other articles. JBW (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JBW, there's a new IP from the same range continuing their disruptive behaviour despite their talk page warnings: 45.183.73.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP range from the articles Bombing of Guernica, 2002 Tampa Cessna 172 crash, 2002 Pirelli Tower airplane crash, 2006 New York City Cirrus SR20 crash, 2010 Austin suicide attack, Connellan air disaster, 2014 Wichita King Air crash, Suicide by aircraft, 2018 Horizon Air Bombardier Q400 incident, 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) and 2024 Brasília attack for two years, for both anon and logged in editing, and totally blocked it for anon only editing for three months. As before, unfortunately I think this will not totally stop them, but it should reduce the damage. A longer-term total block is not absolutely out of the question, as the majority of the editing from the range is apparently this person, but I am reluctant to do that, as there is some constructive editing that doesn't appear to be the same person. Please let me know if you see any editing from this person on other articles, so that I can consider whether to add them to the partial block. JBW (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your continued work improving aviation incident articles! Wikipedia just wouldn't be the same without you. guninvalid (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! To me, it feels unreal to think that it's already been more than a year since I started continuously editing here. At the moment, I don't think I'm planning on leaving Wikipedia anytime soon. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aviationwikiflight. I noticed that you made a claim saying that Aviation Safety Network is an unreliable source because its content is user-generated. However, Wikipedia:UGC does not include ASN as an unacceptable user-generated source.

The page only includes the following user-generated sources: Ancestry.com, Discogs, Facebook, Famous Birthdays, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, Know Your Meme, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, WhoSampled, and Wikipedia (self referencing). ASN isn't on the list of user-generated sources.

If you think it is an unreliable source, then please reply to this message. Thank you. ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 15:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources mentioned aren't the only unreliable sources, they're just examples. Since WP:USERGENERATED can't really name all the user-generated sources, they just use some well-known sources as examples. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UGC states Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, [...] Obviously they're not going to add every single website that would be user-generated. ASN in itself is not unreliable, however the fact that they accept user-generated content on their Wikibase (and partially its Database) makes those entries not acceptable to use. If you want to see an example of why that's a problem, just look at the date and investigation duration of this entry, [9], which took one month to correct. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your edits on KLM Flight 867 and have a question. You report that both sources are unreliable. Now planespotters look like WP:UGC and a personal hobby, so that is no problem. But what about airfleets.net? Also wp:ugc? The Banner talk 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per these two discussions [1] – [2], there was consensus that Airfleets.net is a self-published and user-generated website. The website does not cite where it gets its data from with no information given on its editorial oversight. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you very much. Learning moment. The Banner talk 16:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Aer Lingus Flight 328 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Stop edit warring. You have been reverted by two different editors now. Discuss on Talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Sorry for the disruption. I've reverted my edits and posted a message on the talk page. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

per your split request on Water landing a draft concerning a list of aircraft ditchings has been created

I have plans to copyedit and add new incidents, thank you for proposing this!

Draft:List of aircraft ditchings - Wikipedia

P.S Lolzer3000 Lolzer3k 15:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to insist that my post contains a public notice that there was a personal attack in my post, than so should there be for the reply to it. You are not seriously going to claim that THIS is NOT a personal attack, are you??? That’s something that should even be revdelled!Tvx1 21:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you linked to has you saying "It's incredible how naïve you are," which is definitely a personal attack. ~~~ Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume that you meant to link to someone else's reply (and I think I know which one). Regardless, your comment was itself a blatant personal attack. I understand that things can get heated and these types of arguments are frustrating, but WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA exist for a reason. If you have a problem with personal attacks from another user, bring it up with them, not the one who warned you for your own personal attacks. Better yet, you could take a moment to blow off some steam before continuing. Maintaining civility is generally easier when all parties have cool heads. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me understand two things: 1) why you’re just now calling something a personal attack from 9 days ago that you just now reverted?[10] 2) While I don’t want to seem soft on personal attacks, when looking at policy WP:NPA while I can see how you feel it was a personal attack I don’t see which specific line of NPA they violated? TiggerJay (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of these words, especially in this context" is pretty much a personal attack since the tone and language used is quite condescending and attacks the editor, especially "a clear lack of understanding". I had seen the message but was unsure about what to do, but after seeing their comment on Talk:EgyptAir Flight 804 and reflecting upon it, I removed it. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe that Tvx could be more civil, there is nothing against WP:SPADE - and while I am not suggesting if Tvx is right or wrong about your "clear lack of understanding", that hardly rises to any which specific line of NPA. Just because it feels like it might be insulting your intelligence, when you honestly read the list of examples, this seems like a million miles away from a personal attack. I think people read the first point abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases and completely overlook that it requires those being stated based on protected discrimination classes as with others which are attacking you based on some aspect of the person (ie affiliations, political views) or aspirations which lack evidence. To me both the initial statement from Tvx, as well as your claim to NPA, both seem to be roughtly equally aspirational (just reaching beyond what is actually true), and both adding bad faith to an otherwise routine conflict. TiggerJay (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA states There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion [...] These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. Even though the comment doesn't rise to the point of being "abusive, defamatory, or derogatory" (nor any examples given in WP:NPA#WHATIS), it still is a personal attack. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the line that you quoted is directed towards those who are writing so that they can be careful, as indicated by the statement that the reader should comment on the article's content. TiggerJay (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn’t. It’s expressing a good faith concern that the person misunderstood the meaning of those words in that specific context, which a human being can perfectly do. My brain is still working perfectly, I know perfectly well what I mean when I write something. I don’t need you to explain to me what I mean. Tvx1 22:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop with your double standards?!How on earth can you keep insisting that THIS is NOT a personal attack???Tvx1 22:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has AWF explicitly said that that wasn't a personal attack. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They kept claiming it didn't exist. Tvx1 14:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because the edit you linked above didn't contain the personal attack you were referring to. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually correctly linked the edit (instead of linking your own), there would’ve been no misunderstanding. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop changing my comments. No one has approved of you constantly censoring other peoples’ comments based on what you personally deem inappropriate. That is not accepted Wikipedia practice at all!Tvx1 22:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not changing your comments. If removing personal attacks is portrayed as censoring, we're going to be going nowhere at all. That is not accepted Wikipedia practice at all! Please show me a policy/guideline that states that removing personal attacks is inappropriate. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TPO. Other people have already pointed that what you personally deem to be a personal attack isn't necessarily one. You're adding of the template is disruptive and misleading because you give the false impression that I wrote something worse (e.g. an insult) than I did. Stop it! Tvx1 14:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that other users also agree that it was a personal attack so it isn't just my own opinion. WP:TPO also states that it is acceptable to remove harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism, which by definition would mean that it is acceptable for anyone to remove your personal attack. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1 and @Aviationwikiflight, this has been going for long enough now. Please, for everyone's sake, both of you drop the stick. We all just want to improve Wikipedia. Bickering like this accomplishes nothing. guninvalid (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to if they stop blindly censoring my comments. Tvx1 22:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight Is this an acceptable compromise? If Tvx1 continues to misbehave into the future, we can take them to WP:ANI together. guninvalid (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure how removing personal attacks is censoring, nor am I certain as to how I’ve been hounding them, but I’m willing to stop and drop the stick. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you did remove part of one of my comments again after you posted this message? I would expect that guninvalid's suggestion of filing a report at ANI goes both ways. At the moment you're the one who keeps escalating things. Tvx1 14:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you revert? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, for the love of god, drop the stick already. guninvalid (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can disagree all you want, but you've reverted on that page a good six or seven times (against my twice). One more reversion of any edit in the next 24 hours that isn't vandalism and I'll drop you into ANI. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you consider a revert. I've counted four, one being per an uncontested talk page consensus and one being to revert an undiscussed page move, all within reason. Your threats don't hold water since you've made a personal attack and three reverts. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're at six minimum. Three is the maximum limit with more than three being in blockable territory. That's not "within reason" or even close. It's not your personal article and other people can revert if they see there is something that needs reverting. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've counted four on my part, two justified. Nobody opposed the proposal so the edit was technically allowed, although I will admit that it was rushed. Reverting an undiscussed page move is also within reason. Threats, a personal attack, and three reverts (which can be considered as edit warring) on your part aren't making things any better. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[11] - I think there was talk page consensus for this

[12] - I don't know if there was consensus for this

[13][14][15] - blatant edit warring

[16] - maybe edit warring

[17] - 4th revert Timtjtim (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are very correct in your judgment that the article should be named after the flight (seen on the talk page of the collision article). One collision you missed is Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182. That's the same airline name as flight 5342. PSA was acquired by US Airways, which acquired American Airlines, taking American's name and using PSA for a regional affiliate. PSA 182 was a Boeing 727 which collided with a small plane.

In this case, the helicopter, though tragically lost, would be non-notable in wikipedia if it crashed alone.

Wikipedia has lots of bullies so I am very afraid to voice an opinion. However, the article really should be renamed American Eagle Flight 5342 (or even PSA or American Airlines) but not the current collision name. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't run scripts to make solely cosmetic edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read talk page of GeoFS Mybirthday647 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the talk page and I'm unsure about what you're talking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviationwikiflight! Doing a brief Google search I see a few usable sources to establish notability. I'm about to take a nap but I'll do a full cleanup later today. guninvalid (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources you've linked, none of them are providing any significant coverage of the game itself. I tried looking for more sources but I only found WP:BLOGS and articles to the format of "Flight simulation games to play", with none of them offering significant coverage of the game itself. I managed to find some sources on Google Scholar that mentioned the game but again, none of them provided significant coverage of the game. This source that you cited might be the best of the bunch, but then again, it's pretty borderline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured. It could go to AfD. guninvalid (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Mybirthday647 (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you meant to send this to me. I explained in my edit summary, though I made a typo. I will explain on the talk page. guninvalid (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just describe that removal as vandalism Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia Is there an EILTS or other certificates and how to get them! Thanks. Happy editing! Thanks. Happy editing! (Sherzodbek Aleks 2025 (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not remove that information. It's supposed to be there. Engage01 (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you are referring to me reverting your addition in this edit. If that's the case, the information you added was not supported by a reliable source. If there is one that states that there was an American of Pakistani descent [and] an Indian-American, feel free to cite it. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are sources. You could post them if you choose to. If you want to know the background here, it's not hard to research it. People live in India who are Pakistani and Indian. Probably the reverse is true about people who live in Pakistan and are also Indian. Engage01 (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do so? I am saying please remove yourself from this topic. Engage01 (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss civilly and constructively. Per WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. If you're unable to provide a reliable source to verify your claim, your addition is within grounds for removal. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked for sources? Engage01 (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I? It is not up to me to look for sources. If you want something to be added, feel free to cite a source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are causing problems. Engage01 (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained why I removed the content. If you're unable to accept that and will keep replying in an unconstructive and uncivil manner, I won't keep entertaining this discussion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will you discuss it on the talk page for the event? You are seeming to cause problems. Engage01 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can discuss in a civil manner, yes, I might join the discussion, but as it stands, your accusations aren't helping you at all. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A civil manner, so on your talk page you are behaving civilly? Engage01 (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Believe whatever you want to believe but I think you should be more concerned about your behaviour instead of questioning whether or not I've been discussing in a civil manner. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at your talk page section shows that you often disagreeing. Perhaps you're in the wrong here, just a thought. Engage01 (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see you are getting into conflicts on your talk page? Engage01 (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Borgenland (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you have interacted with an editor being reported per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment and possible Canvassing. 13:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Borgenland (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn’t reference because it’s from the Sudanese air force page on Wikipedia. But I referenced it with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grffffff (talk • contribs) 00:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, unimpressive behaviour. This will be seen differently from other editors, given your track record of such. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it whatever you want but that is far from edit warring. There were cleanup tags placed on the article since 2016. Per WP:BURDEN, I am well within bounds to remove the unsourced phrases. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after seeing Kempegowda International Airport; being correct with your edits is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks they are correct. You need to work this out with the other user, or attempt dispute resolution. Failing all that, you can make a report to WP:ANEW. You may be blocked if you edit war further. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the disruption. I've brought the issue up at the talk page. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you really meant to do it impartially, then check out the Hyderabad Airport and Chennai Airport pages as well. Literally half of the destinations mentioned in the Chennai Airport page are either unsourced or poorly sourced. Many of the flights have flight tracking websites as sources. Or is it just that it applies to only the Kempegowda International Airport page? Just inn-out (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just inn-out Please see other stuff exists. Inappropriate content existing on one article cannot justify adding it on another. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, things only get fixed when someone chooses to do so. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing regarding the edits on the Bangalore Airport article, specifically about Akasa Air operating routes to Gwalior and Goa. I understand your concern about removing content supported by sources, but I believe there are important issues with the information currently included:

1. The sources you provided to support the claim that Akasa Air operates flights to Gwalior and Goa appear to be outdated and no longer reflect the current situation. Wikipedia's verifiability policy emphasizes the use of reliable and up-to-date sources. If these routes were announced in the past but are no longer operational, the information needs to be updated accordingly.
2. I have checked Akasa Air's official booking engine, which does not show any flights available for these routes from Bangalore. While I understand your concern about WP:OR (original research), verifying information against an airline's official booking engine is a straightforward way to check its operational status. If flights cannot be booked, then the routes are not currently active. Period.
3. As per Wikipedia's guidelines, the burden of proof lies with the editor adding or restoring content. If these routes are indeed operational, reliable and recent sources explicitly confirming this need to be provided. Without such evidence, retaining this information could mislead readers.
4. To ensure accuracy and adherence to Wikipedia policies, I propose we remove these routes from the article until a reliable and up-to-date source confirms they are operational.

Tejunavi (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please write in your own words and not copy and paste what an AI wrote for you. You were reverted by @The Banner and me and warned on your talk page to stop edit warring and yet, you still reverted, crossing the limit of an “allowable” three reverts (See WP:3RR. To add, the sources can hardly be considered outdated. Even if the flights can’t be booked, you still don’t have official confirmation that they are no longer active. You need to show through reliable sources that these routes are no longer active. You cannot remove content based on your personal analysis. I suggest you revert your revert. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s quite preposterous for you to accuse me of using AI in my messages when the focus here should be on the accuracy of the information in the article. All I am requesting is for you to provide a valid, up-to-date, reliable, and independent source that confirms Akasa Air is currently operating flights on the Gwalior and Goa routes from Bangalore. The sources you cited are either outdated or do not explicitly confirm that these routes are still active. Simply relying on old announcements without verification does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability.

If you cannot provide such a source, I suggest refraining from accusations and focusing instead on resolving this matter. Tejunavi (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth your original post came up as 50% AI generated according to my checker. If you didn't use AI, okay, but it's not preposterous. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good English doesn't imply that I am using AI. He accused me without basis, that's why I called it preposterous . All I'm asking is for him is to provide a valid, up-to-date source confirming Akasa Air operates these routes. Tejunavi (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're also not denying it, either(and maybe they used a checker as I did), but I'll get out of your way. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why I need to provide them when the sources are already in the article. But if you really want, here’s a more “recent” source. [18] With that being said, there is nothing to suggest, other than original research, that these routes are anything but active. If you wanted to actually resolve the matter, perhaps you could start by reverting this edit of yours. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing your source. However, I noticed that the article you shared is from February 2024, which is over a year old and does not confirm the current operational status of Akasa Air's routes to Gwalior and Goa from Bangalore. Note that airlines frequently adjust their schedules, and relying on such an old source without recent verification does not meet Wikipedia's standard for verifiability.

Please note that I am not willing to revert my edit until you provide a up to date and reliable source.

Thank you :) Tejunavi (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are the person trying to upend consensus, so it is your responsibility to provide a reliable source for this information. You are on Wikipedia; please follow Wikipedia's policies. guninvalid (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really dude, I am trying to make sure Wikipedia is reliable source. For your kind information, I am following all the policies by Wikipedia. According to WP:EDITING and WP:REMOVAL I do not need to prove that a claim is false in Wikipedia to remove it. The burden of proof is on the person adding information to provide reliable sources, not on others to disprove it. Unsourced or poorly sourced content can be removed. The source provided by Aviationwikiflight is old, therefore unacceptable. I am happy to revert my edit if he finds a an up to date and reliable source that proves the operations still exist.

I have repeated myself countless times, but i'll do it again. Akasa Air's website does not show any sort of direct flights or flights under the same number from BLR to Gwalior and Goa. If you do not believe me, you can check for yourself on their website. Unfortunately I can not copy and paste the link that I am looking at right now, since their website does not allow it. Tejunavi (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not how it works. You’ve violated WP:3RR by reverting a fourth time in less than 24 hours. Anyways, since you were not able to do so, I’ve since reverted your revert. The content is not poorly sourced. You’ve challenged its existence through WP:OR. If you’re not willing to provide a reliable and independent source (which you yourself asked for), then why should others do so? I’ve already tried the BLR to GOX route on their website and have been able to book a flight. The same can’t be said for the Gwalior route but who knows? Maybe it’s a bug, a glitch… but until we know for certain (i.e. confirmation from reliable sources), we have to assume that the routes are still active. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how flights work. The Goa route is operated by two different flight numbers. It's like claiming BLR has a direct flight to Nuuk, but you have to connecting in Dubai and Copenhagen, this would clearly be inaccurate. Similarly, the Gwalior route is not available for booking on Akasa Air’s website, as you yourself acknowledged. This means that there is no direct flight or flight under one flight number with a stop over operating on this route. Assuming is simply not what Wikipedia is, you need to verify that the flight is still operational.

Wikipedia is not about assumptions; it is about verifiable information. If you believe the Gwalior route is still operational, you need to provide a reliable, up-to-date source that explicitly confirms this. I have repeatedly asked for such a source, but none has been provided. The absence of bookings on Akasa Air’s website confirms that this route is no longer active. If you are so adamant about assuming its operational status, then it is your responsibility to provide a source that supports this claim. Tejunavi (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tejunavi: This is your fifth revert in less than 24 hours. I’m willing to discuss the issue only if you revert but as of yet, it’s clear that you don’t seem to care about that. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to report the User because of the three revert rule (he's already reported). I, too, have done the same exact thing before and got blocked for 24 hours and, trust me, it felt like garbage (and sort of embarrassing). That's why I am willing to discuss it with you as well. Please do not revert until we've reached consensus. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Krabi to the BLR Airport page as IndiGo will launch daily flights from 30th March 2025. Source: https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2025/03/12/indigo-summer-2025-network-adjustments/

Here is one more independent source: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/indigo-to-launch-direct-flights-between-bengaluru-and-krabi-from-march-30-12962986.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just inn-out (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source to support your answer( 240kmh, 933mb )

If there is no answer then the answer is unknown 210.3.50.94 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These numbers are already cited in the body. If you would like to change these numbers, please provide reliable sources and cite them properly. You have provided only two sources, neither of which are reliable, and properly cited neither. guninvalid (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any cites, so I thought it should be unknown 210.3.50.94 (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that I'm unable to find a source regarding the JTWC's supposed pressure estimate of 933 mbar although the wind estimate of 240 km/h (~130 knots) is cited here:

SUMMARY:
INITIAL POSITION: 16.7N 124.0E
INITIAL INTENSITY: 130 KTS
GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE: 168 NM SOUTHEAST OF APARRI, PHILIPPINES
MOVEMENT PAST 6 HOURS: WEST-NORTHWESTWARD AT 13 KTS
SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT: 50 FEET

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Swissair Flight 111 retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This may be none of my business but I wanted to notify you that some guy just copied and pasted your draft into another page to the article mainspace. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for notifying me. If I'm being honest, I don't think I really mind as I kind of lost interest in trying to develop the draft. I might come back and try to expand it but as of now, it isn't on my list of priorities. But yeah, I appreciate the notification. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this section will be my 10,000th edit, is my 10,000th edit, and was my 10,000th edit! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since, you are the one who is removing plane spotters.net and airfleets.net from Wikipedia, could you help find a reliable source for information on the aircraft before or after it crashed. You removed these sources but don't replace them with reliable sources. You just delete information. Zaptain United (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I usually only remove the citation(s) in question and replace them with a ^{[citation needed]} tag or remove the information altogether if I either can't find a reliable source or the second citation doesn't contain the information cited. As to where one can find sources, you could check ASN, final reports, but there really isn't a good place to look for one as news reports rarely talk about an aircraft's history. You could also try searching on the text contents of the Internet Archive (with or without quotation "...") but make sure that the sources/books aren't self-published. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like, if Mentor Pilot made a video on American Airlines Flight 102, should we have a in popular culture section? Aeroflot Flight 593 mentions the Mentor Pilot video about it. Zaptain United (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could I use Admiral Cloudberg Medium Articles as reliable sources? I think they are reliable enough for use.

https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com Zaptain United (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you since you seem to manage the reliability of sources. Zaptain United (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDIUM is a WP:SPS, and this person's content is no exception. guninvalid (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos meet the same WP:N guidelines as anything else. As for Mentour Pilot, as much as I love Petter, almost none of his content is notable, unless there are WP:RS covering his video in a non WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE manner. The videos themselves also can't really be used for sources as they are WP:SPS. guninvalid (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Would you mind linking me to a consensus as far as preferring the use of the word accident over crash when reliable sources only use crash? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The recent RfC at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 established that both the words crash and accident are ok to use. On the other, do you have a consensus to swap accident for crash? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were over this. Regardless, I have a lot more pressing matters at the moment than dealing with minor semantics debates. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adhering to RS is not minor semantics, and I am allowed to question reverts to edits I make which follow the words reliable sources use to describe incidents entries cover. Words have meaning. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So there isn't one -- that's fine. I just ask you not to cite a consensus which doesn't exist when reverting edits I make based entirely on reliable sources. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that there was a consensus favoring the word accident over crash. I said that there is no consensus favoring the word crash over accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe don't ask me to prove a negative by referring to a nonexistent consensus when I change a single instance of the word "accident" to follow reliable sources? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe don’t misinterpret my words while asking for a consensus when there is not one in favor of removing every single mention of the word accident with the basis of “adhering” to sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a blatant misrepresentation of our most recent interaction. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So is your first comment regarding my edits even though I said that there was no reason to remove accident in favour of the word crash. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a question Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have nothing else to add. Everything that needs to be said regarding this topic has already been said. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just ask that you don't represent a nonexistent consensus in the future if you revert me. It's misleading. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except I never said that there was a consensus in favour of accident but you do you. Cheers. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Somali Airlines Flight 40 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Warriorglance -- Warriorglance (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aviation, may I ask why you are incredibly critical with every single edit made and very strict with sources listed on the TWA flight 841 (1979) page? Every time somebody, myself included, makes an edit you are there in like a few hours. Seriously man, I once made an edit on the Silkiar flight 185 page and yet it took you 3 days to notice it and redact it. In regards to credible sources, on the South African Airways flight 295 page, for a long time Dr. David Klatzow's claims from his book of two fires (which is impossible), the captain didn't land because he would be arrested for endangering the passengers' lives and portions of the CVR transcript were on it and even after I asked you if these should be allowed you didn't answer. Eventually I removed all of that and listed it as an unreliable source. Come on man, you're very strict with books listed as sources on the TWA flight 841 page yet allow very ludicrous claims from a book on the South African Airways flight 295 page.

Either lighten up or systemically go through every Wiki page on a plane crash with a book cited as a source. May I ask, are a Wiki moderator because if you're not then shouldn't you be spending your time on other, much more important matters, in life?

Thank you Krios101 (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not replying to your comment but frankly, I have zero interest in editing the article regarding South African Airways flight 295. Yet, you're blaming me for the insertion of the source when I probably have next to zero edits on the article?

If a source isn't reliable, it is entirely justifiable to remove it, which I did at TWA Flight 841 (1979). Books written by airline pilots with no PhDs nor any sort of experience in accident investigation are not reliable for inclusion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not blaming you for inserting Klatzow's claims on that page, what I'm getting at is the fact that I asked you twice on the talk page and didn't respond; I even mentioned those SAA 295 claims on the TWA 841 talkpage so 3 times I brought those absurd claims to your attention. You edited the ALM 980 page because Corsetti wrote a book on that flight yet didn't review the SAA 295 page. Getting back to my point on how you're there every single time an edit is made on the TWA 841 page, I revised that sentence on the TAROM 371 page because it was awkwardly worded and it is sourced from the final report (page 51 to be exact) but it wasn't until 4 days after did you edit the page and probably wouldn't if I hadn't edited the TWA 841 page. From Mentour Pilot's video on TAROM 371 it is commonly accepted that the co-pilot did confuse his ADI with a Soviet one. C'mon man, stop being very strict with some pages but lenient to others.

A question for you, is it a Wikipedia rule that the author must have a PhD for their book to be cited on a page related to aviation; also if the author of the book was the captain or a passenger onboard the flight then do they need to have a PhD for it to be cited, examples being Qantas 72 and British Airways flight 9. For the latter flight, Macarthur Job and Stanley Stewart's books were cited for that page so please have a look if they can be included. Speaking of Stewart, here is the link below lists books that he has written including those on plane crashes explaining what happened and why, the last one is a citation to him:

- https://www.amazon.ca/stores/Stanley-Stewart/author/B000AP9ZP6?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

- - https://www.amazon.ca/Air-Disasters-Including-Dialogue-Black/dp/0760718768

- https://www.amazon.ca/Air-Disasters-Stanley-Stewart/dp/0711028591

- https://freedomintheair.org/question-in-the-air-stanley-stewart-retired-747-captain-and-author/

He was interviewed for this episode of Survival in the Sky, a plane crash documentary: https://youtube/5_PePO8gtfA?t=332

Also interviewed for this episode of Air Crash Investigation: https://youtube/Kd_rnao1dlw?t=956

Not that this will help, Emilio Corsetti III was interviewed for this episode of Why Plane Crash which had a segment about ALM 980, a flight he wrote a book on: https://youtube/CmYN4hP9RDk?t=666 Krios101 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually use YouTube as a source, right? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just listing that as a place where Stewart was listed as an Aviation Author and a Captain, not that we would ever cite a YouTube video on a page. Krios101 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon man, stop being very strict with some pages but lenient to others. Please remember to keep it civil. We all want to improve Wikipedia, but of course, we will focus our attention on areas we are most interested in. Please try to adopt a less adversarial tone here and stop with the whataboutisms; we are collaborators, not enemies. guninvalid (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that much of Stewart's work is published by the Crowood Press which unfortunately does not have its own Wikipedia article or WP:RSP entry. So without bringing this to WP:RSN, I think the best metric to go off of here for determining whether Stewart is a reliable source for aviation is looking at references in secondary sources, and I'm having trouble finding his work referenced anywhere other than Wikipedia and generic book listing websites. As I read this, I lean towards his work being generally unreliable. But if you want a more definitive answer, @Krios101, you would probably need to take this to WT:AVIATION at least or WP:RSN. guninvalid (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Just so you know, I edited the page before you and noticed that it was removed.) That information is commonly accepted according to whom? The final report only states that:

The French Ministry of Transport commented on the Romanian investigation report, stating that the pilot flying's actions that led to the loss of control could have been caused by the fact that the artificial horizon between Eastern and Western built aircraft is inverted in roll and that the first officer spent the majority of his carreer on Eastern-built aircraft.

hence why the statement needs to be attributed.

Just because Corsetti and Stewart was interviewed and featured on a show doesn’t mean he’s a reliable source. He’s not a subject-matter expert and his opinions directly challenge the findings of an official independent government agency. While it’s not necessarily a requirement to have a PhD, they must have accumulated great knowledge in a particular field or topic and this level of knowledge is demonstrated by the person's degree, licensure, and/or through years of professional experience with the subject. Corsetti and Stewart are simply airline pilots who wrote books, nothing else, and all references to their books should probably be removed. A book written by a passenger or pilot would probably falls under WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case should we include references to Stephen Morrin's book on the British European Airways Flight 609 page, he has only written a few books? Krios101 (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, @Krios101, please stop making these WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WHATABOUTISM arguments. Sources are reliable on a case by case basis. A source can be reliable for one page but not another. guninvalid (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into it and I can't say yes or no with 100% certainty. At first glance, his work appears to be self-published, but looking further into him, him and his book were covered by the Belfast Telegraph where he's described as an Aviation historian [...] who has spent much of his life investigating tragic plane crashes [...] [19]; he's also described as an aviation historian by the Daily Mirror [20]; the same goes for Infobae [21]. For uncontroversial statements, he can be included, like here for example where he's cited for this: After being discharged from hospital, he went to Switzerland to recuperate in Interlaken. At times, he felt like giving up football entirely, until he was told by his wife, Jean, "You know Matt, the lads would have wanted you to carry on.", but unless better sources can be found, his analysis should be attributed as that's his personal opinion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being late on this, Stanley Stewart's book is available on the Internet Archive if you wish to go through it and determine if his findings are reliable to be cited on other pages I mentioned below. He talks about TWA Flight 841 in Chapter 8, page 185: https://archive.org/details/emergencycrisisi0000stew/mode/2up Krios101 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aviationwikiflight, Stanley Stewart's book Emergency: Crisis on the Flight Deck, an updated version of Emergency: Crisis in the Cockpit, both of which talk about TWA 841, was cited on the British Airways Flight 009, Eastern Air Lines Flight 855, Gimli Glider, and Air New Zealand Flight 901 pages.

Stewart's book Air Disasters is also cited on the BOAC 781, South African Airways Flight 201, Munich Air Disaster, British European Airways Flight 548, and 1976 Zagreb mid-air collision pages, so therefore it's appropriate that Stewart has experience with analyzing air accidents and his work be included.

With Corsetti, if he has a post which declares that someone he interviewed for one of his books died, that is just a general fact so that can stay up.

Thank you Krios101 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krios101, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because it's been cited multiple times doesn't make it automatically reliable. If it's wrong here, it's wrong in all those places too. Wikipedia is an ongoing project. guninvalid (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring this up on WT:AVIATION but the aforementioned books are available on the Internet Archive if you wish to determine the reliability of his findings. Krios101 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Somali Airlines Flight 40 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Somali Airlines Flight 40 and Talk:Somali Airlines Flight 40/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Warriorglance -- Warriorglance (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Somali Airlines Flight 40 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Somali Airlines Flight 40 for comments about the article, and Talk:Somali Airlines Flight 40/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Warriorglance -- Warriorglance (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yippie! guninvalid (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Warriorglance: Thanks for the thorough review! It was nice working with you in fixing and clarifying some issues that I missed. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviationwikiflight. I was impressed with how you were able to find that one article on Takis Sakellariou from the Greek newspaper archive. I had tried to use that site to search but it wasn't working for me. If you get the chance, could you check if there's any coverage in that archive of Andreas Vikhos (AFD), Evangelos Skotidas (AFD), and/or Nikos Filippidis (AFD)? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: For Andreas Vikhos, I managed to find this 100-word description of him regarding election recommendations:

Merchants and one of the most prominent members of the commercial world, H. ANDREAS VICHOS, an old Athenian and often involved in public affairs, entered the electoral race, pressured by his friends, but most rightly so insofar as his election means progress in municipal affairs, progress in the city of Athens, for which he has sacrificed most of his life. Mr. [VICHOS] will certainly come among the first in the election of the 4th of August because of his many qualifications and because his long commercial life has made him a beloved and popular man among the Athenian people.

I also managed to find his obituary that's around 160 words long (if this is too much for a quote, feel free to redact it):

Andreas Vichos, who passed away a few days ago, was a truly special human type, pulsating with ecumenical faith, with the understanding of social solidarity and with a creative spirit, a truly pure and enthusiastic patriot, ready for any service and sacrifice towards the nation[.] [H]e went to Crete with En pitropan[?] who called El. Venizelon in 1909 [I'm assuming this is referring to Eleftherios Venizelos and the Goudi Coup]. A volunteer in the wars of 1912-1913, he himself received more honorary recognitions, and subsequently he was actively involved in the organization and strengthening of the Thessaloniki Movement of 1916. Both during the first and second world wars he was persecuted by the Germans, ardent sports fan and former shooting athlete[.] He was a member of many sports clubs and represented the national colors in the Olympic games of Antwerp and Paris, being named the best shooter among the inter-allied nations race of 1919 in Paris. An idealistic type of family man, he raised his children with national ideals and always showed them the way to work. [...]

Albeit short and not significant coverage, this talks about his memorial service, and this is a one line mention of (presumably) him selling a store in a "parliament environment". There are also other sources but I'm unable to verify them due to them being inaccessible to me: [22] [23] [24] But besides that, these should be enough to establish notability and keep the article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Unfortunately, I'm having less success in finding sources for Evangelos Skotidas and even less for Nikos Filippidis. For Evangelos Skotidas, I managed to find notices of his passing but none of which contained much significant coverage:

• This one (probably one of the better ones I've found for him) contained:

  The athlete of the Athenian Club, Evangelos Skotidas, who was honored by the above competition, was a distinquished classical gunfighter who loved the sport of gunfighting, dedicat[ing] his entire life to it and passed on his dedication and love for gunfighting to his three sons, Anastasios, Timon and Georgios, also brilliant gunfighters, repeatedly Panhellenic, pure athletes always distinguished for their ethos.

• This is a resolution on publishing the notice of his passing:

  EVANGELOUS KOTIDA

  a distinguished colleague who honored the legal profession, and who provided valuable service in the administration of the Association

  HE DECIDES

  1) The Association's flag shall be flown at half mast for three days.
  2) The entire Board of Directors of the Association should attend the speech.
  3) The funeral oration will be delivered by the Counselor of the Bar Association, Mr. K. Giombres.
  4) A wreath should be load on the body of the deceased. 5) To allocate 3,000 drachmas to the Lawyer's Welfare Fund of the Athens Bar Association.
  Letters of condolence from the Association should be sent to the family of the deceased.
  7) That this resolution be published in the press in Athens on June 1, 1957.

  The President
  MENIS PAPAGEORGIOU
  The Secretary General
  SPYROS PALLIS

• This talks about the attendees to his reception in a parish of Evangelistria, Piraeus.

For Nikos Filippidis, there's nothing that remotely comes close to containing significant coverage, with this that talks about an emergency program regarding the auction a property only containing two passing mentions of him:

The notary and resident of Thessaloniki, sis S. Nastou, declare that he has hastened to receive from the debtor A. Nikolaos Filippidos, resident of Thessaloniki, pursuant to contract number 6349, notary of Thessaloniki Minas Orolo, for 1) a capital of 100 thousand drachmas and drachmas: [...] Egnatia and Ethniki Amonitis, the text of the cafe, the Renaissance of Mr. K. Mitta, at the usual place of auctions, a house of the aforementioned debtor Antonios Nikolaos Filippidos [...].

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. If you get the chance, how about Konstantinos Lolos? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BeanieFan11: Unfortunately, I'm unable to find any significant coverage of him, although I did find a letter written by him regarding an auction where it's stated and signed that he was the president of Souroti. [25] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you find anything on Leonidas Kormalis? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BeanieFan11: Surprisingly, there are zero search results for him. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand I can't use her articles on Medium since they are self-published, but can I use theses 2 articles since they were published on a news website?

https://southeastasiaglobe.com/contributor/kylan-dempsey/ Zaptain United (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling through Southeast Asia Globe's About Us page, I lean towards likely unreliable. It does seem they have an editorial team, but I don't see any claims about factual or objective reporting. guninvalid (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is footage of Dag Hammarskjöld plane before it crashed, and I was wondering if it is in the public domain to be used. Was the footage copyright claim at any point? The footage was filmed by Jacques Poujoulat. I'm considering taking screenshots from the footage and putting it on the Wikipedia page if it is not a copyright violation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N9LNdqffwM

https://fabryhistory.com/2024/01/19/last-images-of-vlado-stills-from-jacques-poujoulat-16mm-film-from-ndjili-17-september-1961/ Zaptain United (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello are you there? Zaptain United (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these would be considered unreliable sources, see WP:RSPYOUTUBE and WP:RSPWORDPRESS. As for images from them, unless you can show that they are public domain or provided for WP:NONFREE, you would need direct permission from the original photographer. guninvalid (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any proof that any of these images have been released with a free license or that they are now in the public domain. If the images were supposedly in the public domain, they would have to fulfill either Template:PD-US-no notice or Template:PD-US-not renewed. The sources that you gave us don't mention when the images were published and whether or not they were published with a copyright notice. Judging from the fact that the Youtube video that you linked isn't freely licensed, we have to assume that the image is copyrighted unless we have conclusive evidence that it isn't. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cielquiparle (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 22,988 views (957.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I understand if you think it should be removed. The aggressiveness of that editor made me revert his edit since his other ones were reverted. Private User Edgeworth (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I filed an SPI on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyHaliburtn. Borgenland (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack Collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ok? and i was still correct. You don't revert because you got butthurt. All you did was embarrass yourself by re adding a clear private flight on the list and getting reverted not even 30 minutes later. Yikes. 92.118.205.211 (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Collapsing blatant personal attack. guninvalid (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through their edit history and I think I realized I was wading into a swamp I definitely had no hand in, so you guys can handle this one. For some general advice, @Private User Edgeworth, I would recommend that you try to keep your ego at the door, though of course that can often be difficult. If things get out of hand, take it to either article talk or user talk pages. I'm not saying you did anything wrong here; I don't know enough about this situation to say as much. But at least for me, I've gotten quite far off of sincerity and a willingness to admit when I am wrong. guninvalid (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about my ego. These articles have been added quite some time ago with no one voicing any sort of disagreement (at least from what I have seen). That editor removed those articles without discussing it and reacted aggressively when their edits were reverted. Since the other two articles have been re-added, I thought this one should as well. I can admit that I should have consulted it instead of acting on a whim, but this misunderstanding stems from one editor doing the same and reacting with aggression which I find an unacceptable response. Private User Edgeworth (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?user=535624&id=796593043&clippingId=172679469&width=820&height=1735&crop=145_275_1747_3698&rotation=0

https://www.newspapers.com/article/birmingham-post-herald/172679469/ Zaptain United (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCI states that:

Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. However, if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test.

If you can find any sources that discuss that particular image in detail, then a fair use rationale would be ok, but from the looks of it, there is no actual "critical commentary" of the image. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! MentourPilot published a video today about the near miss flight of JetBlue Flight 1748 and I noticed it doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Obviously the video itself wouldn't qualify as a reliable source -- WP:RSPYOUTUBE and all that -- but Petter did link the NTSB report and a couple other sources. Googling it myself, I see a handful of other sources that seem to be mostly news reports, but still sources. Do you think an article on this near miss could exist and pass AfC/AfD? guninvalid (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some research and found a lot of sources. It could possibly be notable but at the same time it is not a guarantee. Zaptain United (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a draft right now for this near crash.

Here it is if you want to improve it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:JetBlue_Flight_1748 Zaptain United (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I believe it is notable but of course that is for others to decide Zaptain United (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of routine "reactionary" coverage to the release of the NTSB's final report but beyond that, there's really no coverage that goes beyond restating and quoting what the NTSB wrote in their report. This piece was published a bit more that a week after the initial coverage to the release of the final report but it really isn't any better than the rest. Beyond December 2023, there isn't any coverage that give this event enduring significance so I'd lean on this being not notable for the time being. Pretty much a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added all the sources I could find online and even listed a change in procedure. I also listed a source from 2001. I'm only asking so I can remove the notability message. Zaptain United (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tag states: Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. The investigation report is primary; the FAA source contains no significant coverage of the accident; the ASN and BAAA sources based on the final report are both tertiary; the AP sources, [26] [27] are both contemporary/primary; The SCMP source only contains a small mention of the accident; the Commercial Appeal source, the Philippine Daily Inquirer source, the Aviation Week source, the Flight International/Flight Global source, the Journal of Commerce, the Independent Online source, and the AFP source via CBS are all contemporary/primary reporting of the accident. To establish notability, we would at the very least need to have sources that discuss in detail the accident years after it happened which appears to be nonexistent at the moment. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://tailstrike.com/database/8-october-1996-aeroflot-9981/ Zaptain United (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) This appears to be a self published source. While that doesn't automatically make it unreliable, SPS generally need to be published by subject matter experts to meet WP:RS. I don't see that the creator of the site has identified themselves, which makes it impossible to determine whether they are a subject matter expert and therefore we should assume it is not reliable. That said, you might be able to find the information you need in the crash report if it is publicly available. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really to add from what ZLEA has already said. Though if you just want to use the CVR, you could either cite ASN which cites: Source: English translation of Italian transcript of the CVR, reported on VOLARE, year XIV, n. 155. CVR transcript provided by Enrico Zaffiri. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I translated it from the Japanese article but after doing a little research, I have a harder time seeing if it being notable. If you put it up for articles for deletion, I will accept it unless someone can prove if it notable. I just don't want to waste my time on an article that might be deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_Flight_813 Zaptain United (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't have full access to the sources, it appears to be notable based on the sources cited in the article, including the two books cited in the article, 『 Mach's fear 』and 『 Following Mach's Fear 』, and this piece by Aviation Week & Space Technology. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You sure? It would have been a no-brainer accept for me. I really appreciate your contributions at AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's just that I'm a little bit hesitant if I'll do well or not, but I think I'll give it a shot. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant is better than overconfident. But, honestly, I'd have accepted you directly to permanent, so please take that as a vote of confidence. One great thing about getting involved during a backlog drive is that you're certain to get some near-immediate feedback as other editors review your reviews. Please do add your name back to the requests list if you're at all interested - I don't want you to feel badgered, so if you do, feel free to tell me to shove off, but I really do think this is a great time to get involved. -- asilvering (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't feel badgered at all and I appreciate your words. Thanks a lot. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone proposed the 2013 Rediske Air DHC-3 Otter crash be merged into Rediske Air. Me and another editor decided to instead propose a merge of the airlines article into he crash since the main reason the airline is even notable is because of the crash. It's been a while since anyone has reply so I was wondering if you could merge the airline article into the crash since I am having trouble with merging. Zaptain United (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaptain United: I'd say that as of yet, there is no strong consensus for either proposal which would probably make this a no consensus close. I'll notify WikiProjects for more discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• RememberOrwell (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You dispute that citation in a federal court decision in a notable case (and closely connected to a case argued before SCOTUS https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-411/300113/20240208125205732_Murthy%20v%20Missouri%20merits.pdf) constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?

That a 22 million dollar settlement is notable?

RememberOrwell (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not User: Aviationwikiflight, but yes, I do dispute that it's notable. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability are based on how this information has been covered in reliable sources that are secondary and independent of the subject. A supreme court brief is considered a primary source and is not useful for establishing notability. guninvalid (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RememberOrwell: For a draft to be accepted, we need indepedent secondary sources^[1] to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:WHYN. Most of these sources are just of lawsuits of the parties involved. The Kaiser Bad News source seems to be anti-Kaiser, hence non-independent, and while the courtlistener document seems good at first, the reference to the Haro v. Kaiser is being used as an argument regarding the PREP Act, hence it's most likely not independent. Something that would help establish notability would be independent secondary analysis of the Haro v. Kaiser case in newspapers or scholarly literature, something which I unsuccessfully tried to find before declining your draft.

Searching again, I did find this paper by The SMU Law Review which contains two paragraphs regarding Haro v. Kaiser which can definitely be used, but even that won’t be enough to establish the cases’s notability since per the message on the draft, we need multiple published sources that are in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable, secondary and independent of the subject, which is lacking. If not, as an alternative, you could try to expand the mention of Haro v. Kaiser located in Wage theft § Contemporary examples since there’s more information on your draft that has yet to be added there. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for the add'l source.

Actually, "The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources online or offline) does not indicate that a subject is not notable" and "We require the existence of at least one secondary source " - WP:N. Those directly contradict your claim above, " we need multiple published sources that are in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable, secondary and independent of the subject

Also I dispute that the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH has a vested interest in of the the topic of Haro v. Kaiser .

• WP:IIS says "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective" so I dispute your claim that federal court decision in a notable case is not "independent", under our rules.

Do you dispute that you misrepresented the bar? Multiple times? Misapplied it to my AfC request? RememberOrwell (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @RememberOrwell. I'm not @Aviationwikiflight, just a talk page stalker, but I don't dispute that the Utah District Court has a vested interest in the subject. However, their verdict is primarily based on and includes the opinions of both Haro and Kaiser, both of which are primary sources. guninvalid (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you dispute that you misrepresented the bar? Multiple times?" Please remember to keep discussions civil and avoid personal attacks. While AWF and I may have different opinions from you, we are all collaborators, and we all just want to improve Wikipedia. Your response was perfectly fine up until this sentence. guninvalid (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one secondary source is to ensure that you’re not basing your article only on primary sources. But to establish notability, we need multiple sources that are independent, in-depth and secondary. As for the question of independence, I understand your argument but I still stand with it not being completely independent, noting that it does not seem to cover the topic in a completely disinterested manner. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You and guninvalid have doubled down on demonstrating a lack of understanding or respect for the bar. AGAIN: "The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources online or offline) does not indicate that a subject is not notable" and "We require the existence of at least one secondary source " - both from WP:N. Those directly contradict your reiterated claim, which you haven't backed up with any quotes. RememberOrwell (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources I've seen in this thread, none of them are reliable, secondary, and in-depth. Many are one of these, some are two of these, but none are all three. guninvalid (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How so for the The SMU Law Review article? RememberOrwell (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're at least acknowledging that "We require the existence of at least one secondary source " is correct. Thank you. RememberOrwell (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Air Tahiti Flight 805 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Page with same title and content already exists

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted my edit regarding the lead update on Air India Flight 171, with the reason "That's a WikiProject essay." Just because WP:AVINAME only holds the status of an essay and not a guideline doesn't mean it cannot be used within related articles of interest. I have further expressed my rationale at the talk page of AI171 regarding this as to why I think that the lead should be updated to my preferred version. MOS:LEADSENTENCE should apply here. Thanks. GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find an easy way to find this information. Do I have to go into an accident report or something like that? Zaptain United (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each airline has an ICAO and IATA code, so you basically just combine those codes with the flight number. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 2300 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 IBM Airlines Boeing 737 shootdown

I have added as many sources as possible I could find on the shootdown and added a lot of information on the pilots and aftermath. I believe it is notable because it has been used as evidence that Kenya is supporting the RSF in the Sudanese civil war. Zaptain United (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry in advance that I can't give you a straight answer, but I think, to be honest, it could go both ways. On one hand, for a relatively obscure incident, I could see an argument being made to keep the article based on the amount of coverage it generated. On the other hand, the fact that most of the (limited) coverage occurred in a relatively short timespan and mostly talk about the pilots, not the incident itself, is certainly not a good look for the article's "survivability". Should the article go to AfD now, I honestly couldn't tell you what I would vote, but for now, I'd probably wait to see if anything new comes out of this. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to Vitsche (organization), thanks! And to note that I prefer to go through the AfC approval process. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In January, you moved the Aero HC-3 page, which had been created by User:Trevor MacInnis, to draft, as it did not have sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. I saw a notice on his talk page that the draft was liable to be deleted because it hadn't been edited for several months, as as a result expanded the article with more sources and returned it to mainspace - I hope this is OK.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aviationwikiflight, for the second running of the Developing Countries WikiContest, it is now open for submissions. Welcome to the contest! You can now list your work at your submissions page to earn points. The coordinators have addressed some of the queries at the last contest and we are hopeful that it'll turn out great for you—yes, you! If you haven't done so already, please review the following:

• New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions on the talk page.
• Got open nominations? List them at the review requests sidebar.
• Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews. Remember, reviews now award 10 points!
• Not sure if your article qualifies? See the scoring rules for more information or contact a coordinator.
• Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open throughout the contest, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you the best of luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		This is awarded to Aviationwikiflight for accumulating more than 50 points during the June 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and sustained efforts in reducing the backlog and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process are sincerely appreciated. Thank you for your participation! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit in my page, I know that the Flight 2216, Flight 1204 and Flight 2259 are not too related. However, I think there has to be a way to mentioned about Flight 2216, Flight 1204 and Flight 2259 as it is apparent that these three crashes have made a period when people talking about 3 major crashes under 24 hours. Also, according to my research, all three of them are mainly occurred at the landing gear. With that said, I hope you can recommend some passage to improve my article. Again, thank you for your contribution. Ohok12 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I mean it's pretty trivial information about three unrelated events that coincidentally happened on the same day. The very limited number of reliable sources that talk about all three incidents do not connect them. For example, although this article (dramatically) talks about all three events, it does not say that they are all related. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's a point! Ohok12 (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a courtesy message to notify you in case you haven't seen the Wikipedia:The World Destubathon contest update in the last few days that we've decided to run the full month until the 16th of July. For those who have been too busy to contribute, we would love some help in reaching 4000 articles by Wednesday night! At present we're about 480 articles short!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see like a government website or BBC nor AP Yousuf31 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Aviationwikiflight, just wanted to say thank you for finding those references on the Dominicana talk page! There have been many failed move requests dating back years, so this is a really positive outcome! Also want to say I've enjoyed our interactions at AfD! Aviation on Wikipedia has a really knowledgeable, friendly and genuine group of editors, which is incredibly encouraging! I look forward to many more great conversations! 11WB (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @11wallisb for your kind words (and the cookie :) ). I appreciate that our conversations have always been nothing but civil and enjoyable. I'm looking forward to our future encounters. Cheers! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @Aviationwikiflight! I didn't expect to be writing to you again so soon, however I came across a talk page discussion that caught me by surprise. I noticed several recent reversions on that particular article that seemed a tad heated. I had a look at the other participant's talk page and came across this AN discussion. Nothing appeared to be resolved here, however it was followed up here, with an apparent agreement to find consensus. This was followed by a period of inactivity on the subject from DEB.

It was my understanding that when using particular wording for different types of aviation articles: 'Accident' (for example) constitutes fatalities on a commercial flight crash or accident, 'disaster' (for example) constitutes an event such as an airshow that can involve fatalities, 'crash' (for example) means that the aircraft crashed - pretty simple and 'incident' constitutes no fatalities usually on a commercial flight runway incursion (examples) or other such incidents (for example) and finally 'collision' (for example) means two or more aircraft have collided usually resulting in fatalities. This generally follows Wikipedia:NCE#Aviation incidents, which in turn cites the Convention on International Civil Aviation, specifically Annex 13, which links to the Aviation accidents and incidents article and says 'An aviation accident is an event during aircraft operation that results in serious injury, death, or significant destruction. An aviation incident is any operating event that compromises safety but does not escalate into an aviation accident. Preventing both accidents and incidents is the primary goal of aviation safety.'

It is my understanding that DEB does not agree with this and instead accuses editors of violating and believes that the use of 'accident' violates WP:NPOV (I do not think this is the case) and strictly follows what each articles reliable sources use. This has been instigated by DEB numerous times over the past 12 months on different aviation articles, including here and here (from what I could find in 2024 - there may be more).

Based on all this, I agree with what user Cullen328 said on the AN discussion and that DEB may be beating a dead horse. A crude analogy, but a good essay nonetheless.

I believe my Annex 13 reasoning is sound (as it does follow naming convention for aviation incidents) and this would be the best argument to use should DEB start one of these discussions on a talk page in the future. Of course, I am only one voice and am still a very new editor. I am interested to know if you agree with me or whether there is a different consensus on naming conventions that I am currently unaware of? 11WB (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should follow MOS (policy), not the guidelines set forth here. See WP:ADVICE. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the page you are referencing please? 11WB (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I'd refer you to rsjaffe's comment here which outlines the logic and links to WP:ADVICE. The policy I am citing is WP:RS and WP:COMMONAME Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, thank you for this! 11WB (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS does not state that articles should use the exact wording preferred by reliable sources, and WP:COMMONAME only applies to article titles, not content within articles. All we need is for a single source to call it an accident, and that's enough for us to follow the style guide without violating WP:RS or any other policy. I've lost track of how many times myself and many others have tried to explain that to you. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZLEA, DEB and myself have had a discussion regarding this here that you might be interested in reading through. They have agreed they won't make any more corrections until a DR has been opened at one of the WP:DR#Noticeboards. I have also suggested the same should apply to starting any new discussions about this dispute on any future aviation articles that are created. I think this is a temporary positive outcome! 11WB (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation has not gone over my head, we just fundamentally disagree on if we should be following reliable sources that broadly avoid using the word accident or not. You continue to insist on following the WP:ADVICE of a project space, I continue to insist we follow reliable sources. The consensus last reached at the Azerbaijani shootdown I can adhere to -- I just ask that aviationwikiflight not revert instances of crash when other users have chosen that to refer to airplane crashes. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think for this, perhaps what Cullen328 said here would be sound advice, in that neither you nor AWF make reversions to 'accident' or 'crash'. (Without the topic ban part of course!) 11WB (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to insist on following the WP:ADVICE of a project space... – Nobody has cited any advice pages; I continue to insist we follow reliable sources... – Reliable sources such as the Associated Press do use accident despite its use supposedly being "vanishingly rare"; The consensus last reached at the Azerbaijani shootdown I can adhere to -- I just ask that aviationwikiflight not revert instances of crash when other users have chosen that to refer to airplane crashes. – Despite consensus at the Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 RfC that accident and crash were both allowable, four months later, you decided to go against it and change accident to crash on the same page where the RfC took place, twice [28] [29]. I have adhered to the consensus and will continue to do so, something which you haven't [30] [31]. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I pretty much agree with everything except for this part: "It is my understanding that DEB does not agree with this and instead accuses editors of violating WP:NPOV". They are saying that accident violates WP:NPOV, not editors violating it. I would have thought that after the RfC they would have stopped changing the words, but I guess I was wrong. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I realise I did not articulate myself properly here, as when I wrote that, I had not fully read and understood the full context of the dispute. I apologise for this @Dreameditsbrooklyn. I will cross out what I wrote above and correct myself. Thank you for pointing this out AWF! 11WB (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AWF, I don't suppose you would mind linking the RfC discussion you mentioned? 11WB (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore my last reply, I think I found the RfC in question here! 11WB (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, here it is: Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243/Archive 4#RfC: Should we principally refer to this as a "crash" or an "accident"?. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just finished reading Dolphin51's summary and I have to say, it is pretty much in line with what my entire thought processes have been whilst reading over all the relevant discussions involved in this dispute. I think this RfC should definitely be upheld and followed. Per my message here and the older admin messages I linked, I think that this dispute is almost certainly a WP:DEADHORSE. I've definitely picked up a sense of editor inertia regarding this whole dispute, I'm hoping that these conversations will end this all off nicely! 11WB (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to put this out there (not sure if it's been mentioned already), but air crashes have been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion regarding whether "accident" violates NPOV. I think DEB's response to it was interesting given their recent actions. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This really makes me wonder exactly how long this dispute has been going on for, considering that discussion you just linked is named '"Accident" revisited'. The keyword being revisited there. 11WB (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I've found my answer by reading the first message. This link is from 2016, over nine years ago! 11WB (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, the whole (on-Wiki) debate on whether accident should be used (not limited to aviation) dates back to January of 2015 with this discussion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite something... 11WB (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely been discussed in a bunch of places dating back a decade. I can try to dig up the first place I saw it at words to watch in MOS. But ultimately I think following RS is our best guidepost. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But ultimately I think following RS is our best guidepost. You are free to think that, but please stop pretending that WP:RS or WP:COMMONNAME mandates that we use the exact wording that is "preferred" by reliable sources within article text. Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose your own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community is listed as an example of gaming the use of policies and guidelines. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of gaming policy is totally disingenuous when multiple reliable sources do not even use the word "accident" to describe the entries we've been discussing. It's ok that we disagree, but please don't be disingenuous. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of gaming policy is totally disingenuous when multiple reliable sources do not even use the word "accident" to describe the entries we've been discussing. You're the one pretending that your actions are supported by policy. Numerous editors have debunked your flawed interpretations of WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME, yet you have failed or refused to get the point and have continued to cite policies that do not support your case as if they do. There is nothing "disingenuous" about pointing that out. While I'm at it, I'll also point out that AWF has provided multiple sources that do use "accident". Therefore, you have absolutely no grounds to ignore WP:AVILAYOUT-ACC. You can disagree with us and "think" whatever you want, but your personal preferences do not override consensus. You have been asked by many editors to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and I strongly suggest that you to heed their advice even if it means voluntarily WP:TBANing yourself from aviation accident and incident topics altogether. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to escalate your rhetoric when faced with the fact that reliable sources do not support your opinion is inflammatory. You've already discussed sanctioning me over this polite content dispute when I've insisted that we follow RS. I ask that you also drop the stick as I've outlined my steps going forward to not come into conflict with AFW. You're the one making this a battleground. Relax. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be time to WP:WALK. I say this in a friendly manner of course! I didn't intend for the dispute to carry on in AWF's talk page. 11WB (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you.  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 00:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I didn't think that AutoEd would mess up the file names. Thanks for the notification. Cheers! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're a month into the 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest, with stiff competition at the top of the leaderboard already! Our current top five contestants are:

1. Spookyaki (submissions) – 256 points, mostly from a handful of GAs about women's history in Latin America as well as the 1991 Haitian coup d'état.
2. vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) – 229 points, back with a number of articles on abortion in various African countries.
3. simongraham (submissions) – 213 points, mainly from GAs on species of jumping spiders in both Africa and Azerbaijan.
4. PizzaKing13 (submissions) – 200 points, with five GAs on articles relating to Salvadoran politics, history, and griddle cakes.
5. BeanieFan11 (submissions) – 168 points from a few GAs, a few DYKs, and a few ITNs on athletes from a variety of countries.

Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier!

On behalf of the coordinators, we'd like to thank all the participants for helping to combat systemic bias on Wikipedia! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said it was a wreckage of a Beechcraft but all the sources featuring this image say it shows the wreckage of American Eagle Flight 4184. Zaptain United (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See page 3 of this final report (or page 8 of the PDF numbering) where it's written "Figure 1". Although the image is of bad quality, you can see that it's the exact same image. See ASN and BAAA. This seems to be a mistake that has yet to be corrected. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy in 2011 and I have made a similar mistake where I thought N115GP was Flight 4184. I was swiftly corrected by an editor in American Eagle Flight 4184 talk page. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I haven't always agreed with you at the AFDs, but I'm impressed with your source-finding abilities and appreciate that I'm not the only one looking into the Olympians :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot BeanieFan11! :) Likewise, I'm also especially impressed with how many articles you've managed to expand and save from AfD. And yeah, for now, I don't think I'm planning to stop working on Olympic-related articles. Cheers! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aviationwikiflight! I'm unaware of the exact situation regarding the recent mass changes to aviation article short descriptions. I've seen you have been doing some mass reverts to put them back to how they were. Perhaps someone with the rollback permission could do this with a simple edit? Only suggesting this as it appears to have taken up quite a bit of your time today! 11WB (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 11wallisb. For context, it's basically a dispute on whether the wording of short descriptions should change from "[YEAR] aviation accident (in [LOCATION])" to "[YEAR] aircraft accident (in [LOCATION])". There was some pushback here against the change (with not the nicest of comments), but the involved editor who wanted to perform the change went ahead and edited the short descriptions of multiple articles. Regarding the use of rollback, I think that the "undo" or "restore" buttons basically have the same functions as rollback. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed reply, I have been involved in another situation elsewhere. The situation you have been dealing with seems completely unnecessary. I don't see any issue with using the term 'aviation', as it has a different meaning to specifically 'aircraft'. Kudos for going back and undoing all the edits made to the short descriptions in any case! 11WB (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aviationwikiflight. I've noticed a few occurrences of edit warring on multiple aviation accident articles, in particular on American Airlines Flight 11. There seems to be repeated occurrences of similar behaviour on other articles too. I am wondering if it may be worth taking this to one of the noticeboards? I would only suggest this if it is likely to continue however. I am neutral, however I absolutely understand these occurrences have not been instigated by you. Just looking to find a possible way to resolve this! 11WB (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Aviationwikiflight, recently, you nominated a non free use photo that I uploaded for speedy deletion, stating that "it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary." I find this to be misleading, as the photo I uploaded was the subject of the sourced commentary. The article where I got the image from was about Angara Airlines Flight 2311 and the photo was used on said article. If you could just elaborate and potentially give a clearer reason for the speedy deletion nomination, I would greatly appreciate it. Fadedreality556 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fadedreality556: WP:F7b says that Non-free images or media from a press agency or photo agency (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and may be deleted immediately. F7b links to Wikipedia:Non-free content, of which it says that ... if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test. The caption of the image in question only states: "Parts of the burning wreckage of the plane were discovered about 9 miles from Tynda airport." Even if we were to disregard the "critical commentary" part, the caption provides no commentary or analysis of the image. It's just a short description of the crash site. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the "=" key in the URL, it's breaking the tq template but I don't know why. There are times in the URL when we can replace the "=" key with another key which does the same job but not this time. I've found a way to show it but the codes and words will not 100% match with the ones here.

Per WP:NFC § Unacceptable use which lists "situations where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions", A photo from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. The photo is owned by Reuters (a press agency) per [this source] and has not received any critical commentary by reliable sources. Hence, this file does not meet fair use.

The current format in Zaptain United's talk page also seems okay to me. I'm just writing this here to fill in the void. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know that the equal sign could break the template. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I wanted to get your thoughts since you seem to have had quite a bit of interaction with editor Yousuf31. Simply put, I do not think this user 'gets it' when it comes to notability and basic behavior standards. I've been bashing my head against their talk page for some time now trying to give helpful guidance and suggestions, but to what appears to be no avail. I think they're acting in good faith, but I really am concerned there's a basic competency issue at play here, in addition to a generalized unwillingness to communicate and collaborate. I'm thinking of opening up a case at ANI, but I'm not sure that is actually the most useful course of action...they've not done anything ban-worthy, just taken up a lot of time by other editors who've had to follow them around to clean up messes. nf utvol (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following this user's re-creation of a deleted article, I went ahead and brough this up at AnI. If you have anything to add or comment, please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Yousuf31 - AfC "Shopping" and Recreating Articles Deleted Following AfD. nf utvol (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for responding late. Regarding your comment, I agree that they're acting in more than likely acting in good faith and have not done anything "ban-worthy", but yeah, it is tiring having to clean up the non-notable articles being created. Perhaps a warning/re-explaining wiki-notability would be helpful though. I'll save some more comments for the discussion that you opened. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]