Are you ready for IPv6? (talk | contribs) |
Harry the Dirty Dog (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
Sorry...rolling back your edits wasn't the politest of edits, but this article endures so much abuse, I think the main sourcing for this info should be a news report. [[User:Flowanda|Flowanda]] | [[User talk:Flowanda|Talk]] 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
Sorry...rolling back your edits wasn't the politest of edits, but this article endures so much abuse, I think the main sourcing for this info should be a news report. [[User:Flowanda|Flowanda]] | [[User talk:Flowanda|Talk]] 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Your vandalism and false accusations. STOP TROLLING! == |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits{{#if:Talk:Fritzl case|, such as the one you made to [[:Talk:Fritzl case]],}} did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> |
|||
By the way vandalism and falsely accusing people of vandalism is against the rules. STOP TROLLING! [[User:Are you ready for IPv6?|Are you ready for IPv6?]] ([[User talk:Are you ready for IPv6?|talk]]) 14:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I also reverted your vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann&diff=prev&oldid=273854861]. It looked like you were bullying yet another editor by yet more talk page vandalism. [[User:Are you ready for IPv6?|Are you ready for IPv6?]] ([[User talk:Are you ready for IPv6?|talk]]) 14:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:35, 28 February 2009
Talk to me!
Can you point out the relevant discussion in regards to your removal of John Jamelske from the "see also" section? The notice in that section states:Please do not add additional cases to this list unless you cite a reliable source comparing the cases. In my edit summary I included a link from MSNBC that directly discusses and compares the two cases. AniMate 07:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This is my first time leaving a response on someones 'talk page' so i apologize if I'm doing it wrong. First off, Fritzl did have a dungeon, and he was the master of it, so why is it 'vandalism' if he's called the dungeon master? I thought it was being constructive with a nickname that Fox News used. Also why are you giving me a 'final warning'? I don't believe that I technincally fall under persistent valdalism in your blocking policy, because I was given a warning about a revert war and vandalism a year ago and was told not to add 42 to the meaning of life page a few monthes ago. So since I have very long gaps between my warnings from you mods I dont think you could give me a 'final warning' if I've only slipped up twice in over a years time. --Das Links (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Coup
What did I remove that was sourced? The portion I rewrote, about the events leading up to the coup, was completely inaccurate. If the source said that stuff, it is dead wrong. An accurate account of those events, which I wrote with ample sources from the Agence Mauritanienne d'Information, is available at the Yahya Ould Ahmed El Waghef. Everyking (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Toronto Airport
Why did you removed the section concerning criticism for the Toronto Pearson Airport when it was perfectly valid? It was referenced, and instead of removing the entire section because of weasel words, why don't you think of rewriting it to make it better? It is good info for encyclopedia, unlike how you pointed out. Also, this section is no different to Boston Subway's section of criticism.Messiisking (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I see you redirected this. I thought it looked Malaysian How'd you know to redirect three? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
usage of "operated by" in airline terminology
Thanks. That's a much better solution.
Here is an example of "operated by" followed by the name of an airline, not an aircraft, so I would be very interested in seeing an example of the usage you cite here:
- 'In airline terminology, a flight is operated by a specific aircraft type. Look at airline timetables and you will see "operated by" next to the aircraft type..'
--Jtir (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: 87.74.2.211
Yeah, I sorta saw the edits in the History page. But, what I don't understand is that the IP is "warning" me about removing his/her edits and to see the discussion at the talkpage, which to me seems not to add that info., right? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Aww, that makes more sense. But, it'd be a good idea to report the IP, for reverting the edits and stuff. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Airline accidents and incidents
Have to agree with your comments about the inclusion of incidents and accidents in airline articles. You may be interested that some work was done earlier in the year to make the guidelines for airlines and airports similar and the latest airline version from Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content is:
Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
- The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
- The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
- The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.
Note this is not the same as the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide! I would think if you find any that do not meet the above then they should be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
On censorship of speculation in airline accidents pages during the investigation period
Fgrieu (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC) On the page Spanair Flight 5022 you (HtDD) twice removed my comments, with source quoting the official investigators, that the accident had striking similarities with Northwest Airlines Flight 255 where the crew failed to deploy the flaps/slats, which would be a perfect explanation for what is known of the plane's behavior. Your justification was that it was just speculations.
Now it emerges that indeed the flaps where not deployed, and that (as in the similar accident) some electrical fault or disconnection prevented the flaps alarm to sound; and that the engines worked normally. So, you dismissed as "speculation" what now appears to be the right explanation, and left other "information" on the likely cause of the accident (engine fire/failure, reverse engaged by accident...) now apparent to be plain erroneous speculation.
My conclusion would be that in the context of airplane crash and during the investigation period, there should be no censorship on speculation, on the basis that it is speculation, when it is plausible speculation, and especially when it is presented as speculation.
Shipkicker (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I agree with HtDD on this. People read an encyclopedia for facts, not speculation - whether plausible or otherwise. If you want speculation, go to a rumour site. Once the facts are established, then add them here, but not until then.
regarding your change, while I admit it's unlikely, it is possible that there could be an election between now and the leadership convention that could put Dion as PM. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, i'm new here on english wikipedia and I just want to improve it. Could you please tell me, what's wrong on my incident report of Ryanair scheduled flight from Brno to Stansted? I've seen there has recently been incident about Ryanair landing at Ciampino Roma. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hondrej (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Three Revert Rule Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ryanair. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mjroots (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- As you are aware, I have raised the issue at WP:AN3. If you haven't broken the 3RR rule, then the outcome of the process will show that. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Disruptive Editing to Ryanair article
The Ryanair Ciampino meets notability guidelines in WP:AIRCRASH, specificially It is the first or worst accident for a particular airline or airliner. This latest incident involved multiple birdstrike affecting both engines, hard and/or off runway landing causing landing gear collapse, runway blocked and airport closed for 36 hours, 10 people with minor injuries. If there is an incident which caused more damage to an aircraft and disruption to an airport than this then I am not aware of it.
I accept that the Limoges incident resulted in 25 people being taken to hospital (at their own request according to Ryanair) but there is no evidence that their injuries were anything other than minor. Limoges wasn't notable, you lost that argument.
May I suggest that you take a step back and see what others have to say rather than starting a one man crusade on the matter. 84.9.32.138 (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I see you are now accusing me of edit warring and violating the 3RR on my talk page. YOU are are one who has reverted the edits 7 times and made 24 edits to the discussion page in the last few days. Once again, may I suggest that you take a step back and see what others have to say. 84.9.32.138 (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Canvassing?
Please explain where I have canvassed others in order to circumvent the 3RR rule? If you check my contributions, you will see that I have not done this. In my last edit I stated that I was not going to re-add the accident to the Ryanair article (I was asked to do this by an IP user), as per edit note in the Accidents and incidents section. If the accident is re-added, I will edit it if necessary to ensure accuracy and that it is correctly referenced, but I'm not going to add it again myself. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I wrote "Please do the Wiki a favour and put this Ciampino incident back in to the article". This was a response directed at User_talk:217.28.34.132 asking to the section to be reinstatted after User_talk:217.28.34.132 removed the incident. It wasn't meant to be an attempt to get people to gang up on anyone. Sorry if it was misunderstood, I'm still a bit new to all this. 84.9.32.138 (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Peace offering
It looks like the Ryanair accident is there to stay. Please accept this cookie as a peace offering. Mjroots (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Rob Fyfe
One can only speedy delete as G4 if the article was removed via AfD--it had been removed as a copyvio via speedy--but the present version is a new one and not copyvio. And being CEO of a significant company is at least an indication of importance, which is enough to pass speedy. DGG (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- unsourced is not a reason for speedy deletion. the article merely has to indicate something that might be notable. It's deliberately set as a very week bar. As for nominating to actual deletion, the standard for deletion is unsourceable, not unsourced. The obvious thing to do is to first look for sources on him--the company website is an obvious place to start--an official bio there is enough for uncontested facts like being the ceo of the company. You're apparently an expert in the general subject, anyway. DGG (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
License tagging for File:KristenIversen.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:KristenIversen.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Edward de Bono ip
Would it be fair to assume you made the edits as 79.68.233.23 (talk · contribs)?
AfD nomination of Adam Ozanne
An article that you have been involved in editing, Adam Ozanne, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Ozanne. Thank you. B.Wind (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry...rolling back your edits wasn't the politest of edits, but this article endures so much abuse, I think the main sourcing for this info should be a news report. Flowanda | Talk 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)