Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:05, 12 November 2008

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Talk to me!

Fritzl case

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)

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)

Taman negara gunung mulu

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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.

Edward Blake

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)