Archives

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 11,12,13,14,15,16,17

Could you kindly link to the consensus on not listing, naming survivors, dead, or those who miss the plane unless they are WP notable? Best regardsAlvaldi (talk)21:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here arejust some of the many discussions-

• Here-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name?
• Here-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question
• Here-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203
• Here-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force/Archive_6#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster
• Here-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_705 Go to section Names of victims and survivors.

Plus see ANI discussions here[1] and here[2]. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft involved....William, is the complaint department really onthe roof?21:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so we are clear, you are absolutely sure that the person who headlines the articles about the accident on CNN, Washington Post, CBS News, Fox News, NPR, NBC, The Guardian, The Independent and Sky News should not be mentioned in the article?Alvaldi (talk)22:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the 4th time, they don't get named if they don't have an article.@Ahunt:,@Andrewgprout: please chime in....William, is the complaint department really onthe roof?22:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YesUser:WilliamJE is quite right, that is the longstanding consensus. It really all comes down toWP:NOTNEWS andWP:LASTING. Cessna 172s crash all the time, as I noted on the AfD, of the 44,000 C-172s built over the last 67 years, probably at least 10,000 of then have been crashed, some more than once. Unless someone notable is involved (with a pre-existing bio on Wikipedia), or there is some lasting effect in terms of procedural changes orAirworthiness Directives, then it is just another crash, one of tens of thousands and not notable. -Ahunt (talk)22:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history atBob Goalby shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Seethe bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.  — Amakuru (talk)10:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newspapers established in year cat has beennominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe entry on the Templates for discussion page.WikiCleanerMan (talk)03:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well the connection is that people still remembered the crash of the yemenia plane and were still shocked with the crash but however i dont see the connection with Air France 447 too but i guess there is a connection between the yemenia and the crashIyusi766 (talk)18:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also section links were discussed recently here[3]....William, is the complaint department really onthe roof?19:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE, I think it is very poor form to nominate an article at AfD and then subsequently gut it, for whatever reason. If you nominate an articl at AfD, as is your right to do so, then you should leave the article in much the state you found it so that editors can put forward their views based on the article as is, or as improved. Copyvios and BLP violations are the only exceptions to this, and may be removed at any time. Your future co-operation in this will be much appreciated.Mjroots (talk)19:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: This is moronic. I removed things that weren't reliably sourced, weren't sourced at all, and a list of those killed in the crash. If you read my edit summaries you'd know that. Demonstrate one thing I took out that doesn't have one of these apply. What you said above is idiotic otherwise....William, is the complaint department really onthe roof?19:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By leaving the article largely how you find it, it gives editors the chance to look at what is there, and maybe improve it, perhaps by finding references for stuff that is unreferenced. I did read your edit summaries, but it is the attempt to gut the articleafter nominating it for deletion that, to me, is unfair on the editor(s) that put time and effort into creating the article, whatever flaws it may have.Mjroots (talk)20:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking this edit[4], the first paragraph wasn't referenced at all, the second had two references neither of which are considered reliable sources. I clean out this shit out of articles all the time, and I take grief for it too[5] when I haven't done anything wrong. If the claims about someone dead or alive aren't properly referenced, they don't belong in an article whether the person is dead or alive and whether its at AFD isn't a factor either. Cite me one thing on Wikipedia that says I did wrong or take me to ANI. Otherwise you're being idiotic....William, is the complaint department really onthe roof?20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you requested, I've raised the issuefor discussion at AfD. Not looking to have you sanctioned, but to clarify this issue.

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Mjroots (talk)11:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do good work, and you stand against the horde. I appreciate that. Have this beer on me.♥Th78blue (talk)♥18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit removedJacqueline Kennedy Onassis as a notable in the article forPeapack-Gladstone, New Jersey. Her article made the connection to the borough and sources are amply available; it took me minutes to address the issue and restore the content. The fact that a source does not perfectly support a fact in an article does not make the fact false nor does it justify the deletion of the material.WP:PRESERVE says that you should "fix problems if you can, tag or remove them if you can't", but there has to be some effort toWP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Some of the suggestions include "Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself" or "Tagging it as necessary". Please try to do this in the future, asWikipedia:Editing policy is exactly that, a policy.Alansohn (talk)18:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• See my edit summary here[6]. You're hardly the person to complain. The same editor who took me to ANI[7] for removing your book spamming. The same editor who reverted[8] an edit of mine thinking blogspot is a reliable source. The editor who thought Abe Vigoda was from Woodland Park[9]. Oh there is this shit of yours I had to clean up[10] too. Miscommunicating and desperate can describe you besides that edit. Putting references that don't corroborate the sentence is a big problem around here[11] and you're doing it too. Shame on you for coming here to bitch about my editing when you do this shit here. Make a bet there is more work like this in edits here....William, is the complaint department really onthe roof?01:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all your tantrum above,this edit demonstrates that the individual is notable and that her connection toPeapack-Gladstone, New Jersey is backed by a reliable and verifiable source, one that you would have found if you had bothered to fulfill your obligations underWP:FIXTHEPROBLEM to make an effort to actually fix the problem instead of butchering it away. You're welcome to bitch and moan with all the what abouts, but here is a case whereYOU blatantly violated Wikipedia policy. I will offer another much-needed reminder thatWikipedia:Editing policy is exactly that, a policy. Shame on you.Alansohn (talk)03:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You put in the same reference not once but twice that didn't say any such thing. If you bothered to read the talk page discussion[12] I linked to this is a major concern of not just me but other people around here. Let's not forgetWest Windsor, New Jersey where you allowed a major violation of BLP, not to mention the reference not saying any such thing, to stand for six months. You try to own all NJ articles but you disavow all the screwups you or others make. If something is in an article with a reference saying no such thing, it shouldn't be there. Please explain why it should....William, is the complaint department really onthe roof?10:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of24 hours foredit warring and violating thethree-revert rule, as you did atNigeria Airways. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Mifter (talk)04:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mifter: Serious you fail reading comprehension. The article says 53 dead. The garbage reference says 69.IN THE HEADLINE. If you or anyone else can't see that[13], you shouldn't be editing here alone be an administrator. This type of garbage referencing is a plague at WP and here is just one case[14] of the many times I have said that. And as always the incompetent or clueless administrators, punish the editors[15] who take this shit out of the article (CheckNaomi Ishisaka out) for proof or these two admins getting on my case[16] for taking shit out of articles. Now prove to me you can read what I just wrote....William, is the complaint department really onthe roof?16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that any uninvolved editor can easily see is that if you had beenWP:CIVIL and provided a better edit caption, you would not have been blocked. Civility isn't just for other people, it's for you too. It would be easy to provide a series of diff's showing you that most of your edit wars and all of your blocks would not have occurred if you didn't engage other editors with such an unpleasant demeanor.Jacona (talk)17:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I appreciate that you are frustrated, however would again caution you against being uncivil or making personal attacks. I am happy to discuss the rationale for my actions, however incivility and personal attacks are exceptionally damaging to the project and, just as I treat you civilly, I expect the same in return. The block I imposed was for a violation of 3RRtaking into account, among other things, that you were uncivil when you addressed the IP on the article's talk page as well as your prior block/warning history for edit warring and civility. To your point about theIP's source, I have no stake in the outcome of this dispute, however, in reviewing the substance of the proposed addition prior to my issuing a block (to see, among other things, if a 3RR exception applied), would note that the reference the IP was adding (as well as asecond reference I located in a quick search repeating the quote the IP is relying on) stated that "there were still conflicting reports on the number of people aboard the Fokker F-28 and how many people survived the fiery crash" (IP source with the headline noting "67 people were killed") and "there was still no firm word on the number of people who were aboard the Fokker F-28 jet nor how many people survived" (secondary UPI source I located) which, given that the news articles were published contemporaneously with the crash, is not terribly surprising. However, the specific information the IP is relying on (which appears in both their source and the secondary source I located) does not relate to the preliminary reports of the number of dead (which arelikely to be inaccurate), rather a description of a radio broadcast from "Vice President Alex Ekwueme" about the crash stating that the crashed flight was "flight WT-250". The decision for whether or not the source(s) is/are credible/reliable enough to support including the flight number in the article is one I will leave to you, the IP, any any other editors who may comment, however, on its face I would not consider the sources to be so easily discarded as unreliable or inaccurate to justify simply reverting without discussion (i.e. there is reasonable argument that facts about the flight number are likely to be known prior to a crash and may be accurate in initial reports even if the preliminary number of dead is not). To the other points you raise about prior discussions/other articles, as noted above, my actions here were solely as a result of your 3RR violation and edit-warring onNigeria Airways and are not meant to be punitive. I was not aware of and did not take into account any specific actions/discussions that may have occurred at other places (excepting that, as noted above, a cursory review showed you have a history of civility/edit warring blocks and warnings). Thank you,Mifter Public (talk)17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Alansohn (talk)19:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia'sharassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk)05:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for other reasons as well, including including repeated edit warring, disruptive editing including personal attacks and harassment, and signature related disruption. I will not support any unblock request that does not include acceptance of an indefinite 1RR restriction and a rock solid personal promise to never ever make a personal attack on another editor again, and to change your disruptive signature to something utterly uncontroversial.Cullen328 (talk)05:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articleNeil Wilson (baseball) has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The SNG's for sports figures require that they now meetthe general notability guideline. There are no references for this individual, there is trivial coverage in sports databases, but nosignificant coverage that would lead one to believe they meet GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Jacona (talk)11:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCategory:1953 disestablishments in Argentina indicating that it is currently empty, and is not adisambiguation category, acategory redirect, afeatured topics category, under discussion atCategories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted undersection C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you maycontest the nomination byvisiting 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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself.Liz^Read!Talk!01:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articleJose Paala Salazar has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Crash victim, only one source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Jacona (talk)14:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCategory:1947 disestablishments in Virginia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not adisambiguation category, acategory redirect, afeatured topics category, under discussion atCategories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted undersection C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you maycontest the nomination byvisiting 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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself.Liz^Read!Talk!01:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

(from thecabal of the outcast) --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleNeil Wilson (baseball) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Wilson (baseball) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

StarMississippi14:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the alumni by private school from "People from Foo" categories since you are quite right that the students many not be from that town (example). It's also important to leave some other local parent category so readers can still navigate to the category though. For instance, I just addedCategory:Sayre School alumni toCategory:Education in Lexington, Kentucky which seems both accurate and helpful. Hopefully you return to editing soon but, in the mean time, I'll do some cleanup here. -RevelationDirect (talk)03:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect: - you can note that this user was indef blocked in June 2022 and is no longer here. -Ahunt (talk)19:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCategory:2006 disestablishments in New Hampshire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not adisambiguation category, acategory redirect, afeatured topics category, under discussion atCategories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted undersection C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag.AusLondonder (talk)19:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCategory:2019 disestablishments in Montana indicating that it is currently empty, and is not adisambiguation category, acategory redirect, under discussion atCategories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted undersection C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag.Liz^Read!Talk!03:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aer Lingus Flight 328 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following adeletion discussion, atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aer Lingus Flight 328. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting 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 withWikipedia'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 thedeleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a requesthere.Викидим (talk)02:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]