|This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at
|Because of school, TheAirplaneGuy will not be very active on weekdays, but should be back editing voraciously on weekends (except when doing homework or being on vacation).|
- 1 Your CVUA application
- 2 CVUA
- 3 CVUA
- 4 Talkback
- 5 QF1, Bangkok
- 6 A couple of things...
- 7 September 2012
- 8 PERM
- 9 Orphaned non-free media (File:Seconds From disaster.jpg)
- 10 Image tagging for File:New Australia's Got Talent.png
- 11 The orginal titles are not yet known...
- 12 My Edits on iCarly article
- 13 South African cricket team in Australia in 2012–13
- 14 Meetup invitation: Melbourne 26
- 15 Shane Warne
- 16 Cricket
- 17 Orphaned non-free media (File:New Australia's Got Talent.png)
- 18 August 2013
- 19 Talk:List of Mayday episodes
- 20 List of Mayday Episodes
- 21 Revert tool
- 22 MH370
- 23 Weird username conflict
- 24 Source question
- 25 Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
- 26 Malaysia Airlines Flight 370: "Missing, Under investigation"
- 27 Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash
- 28 Inapproprite revert
- 29 MH370 (2)
- 30 ANI
- 31 MH370 image caption
- 32 Proposed deletion of Tomnod
- 33 Use the MH370 talk page
- 34 Air France 447
- 35 Non-free rationale for File:Chinese satellite image of possible debris of MH370.jpg
- 36 Orphaned non-free image File:New Australia's Got Talent.png
- 37 Sorry
- 38 Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
- 39 Discretionary sanctions notification
Your CVUA application
Hello! I'd be willing to adopt you as a student. I notice you have experience with removing vandalism, but were you aware that there is a special page that lists possible vandalism? The page is Special:Tags. Several of the tags are inactive but most of the others are active. If you need additional help, feel free to contact me at my talk page. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Vertium (Steve in real life) and I understand your previous mentor on CVUA has become unavailable. I'm happy to help out and will be glad to take you on in the Academy. To get us started, if you can give me a brief update on how far you got with your previous instructor, I'll organize the path forward. I generally set up a separate Academy page on which we can have an ongoing dialogue about vandalism and deal with the tasks of getting you graduated. I'll do so as soon as I hear back from you. All the best... Vertium When all is said and done 18:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, hope you're doing well. Can you let me know if you're still interested in the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy? Thanks! Vertium When all is said and done 21:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
A couple of things...
Hi, I'm sure you saw that the article on QF1 was kept after it's AfD. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
Since I've not heard back from you on CVUA, I'm moving you to inactive status. You can pick up whenever you're ready in the next 30 days, without having to re-enroll. Just leave me a message on your talk page. Thanks! Vertium When all is said and done 18:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Singapore Airlines does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! JetBlast (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Qantasplanes. We appreciate your enthusiasm, but I'm just pointing out that Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback is not an RfA-style voting page and unless there is a compelling reason, there is no need there for nao that do not contribute to the decision that admins will make and for which they already have more tools than non admins for checking on users' editing histories. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Seconds From disaster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Seconds From disaster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Image tagging for File:New Australia's Got Talent.png
Thanks for uploading File:New Australia's Got Talent.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
The orginal titles are not yet known...
Hi! Thank you what you've contributed with to Wikipedia. I noticed you've been trying to insert the note that the original titles are not yet known for the episodes 11 to 13 of season 12 of Mayday on the List of Mayday episodes, while some people have been trying to delete it. Why do you say they're not known, and where did you get that info? You should include a source, right? Or at least discuss this on the article talk page, right? The idea's not adding and removing, showing an argument on the description of the change! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? Here, please! Thanks! 08:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
My Edits on iCarly article
Hello. You reverted my edits on the iCarly article. I have noted that you prevent vandalism. Please explain why my edits were vandalism. If you did not revert them because you thought they were vandalism, please tell me why you reverted them. Dan Schneider should not be called Dan nor should "development" be spelled "developement." WiHkibew (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
South African cricket team in Australia in 2012–13
Hi. Nice work on the current cricket series article. You may be interested in this which I posted at In the News Candidates. Couldn't resist the Mitchell Johnson dig, hehe ;-) Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Meetup invitation: Melbourne 26
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Sunday (6 January). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 26. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 06:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Your reverted my reversion with no explanation whatsoever. I had justified mine in an Edit summary. I have no idea why you re-reverted, nor has anybody else. Please take this to the article's Talk page. (And use Edit summaries in future, otherwise it's just too easy to treat your edits as vandalism.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
From my perspective, the purpose of the match summary is to briefly describe the pacing and flow of the innings, and to highlight key moments and strong performances. My version of the match summary achieves all of these aims. Your version of the match summary has the following flaws, which mine addresses:
- Unreasonable focus on non-notable performances (particularly the low scores by Hughes and Hussey, and the token contribution of Doherty)
- Failure to acknowledge the strong bowling performance by Sri Lanka, which ultimately set the tone for the major part of the innings
- Failure to provide any context about the pace of the innings. For example: From what time did Australia lose wickets regularly? How large was the last wicket partnership? Over how many overs? Without this information, the comments are just sporting clichés, not encyclopedic facts.
- Failure to discuss the talking point of Australia having no challenges remaining when the two incorrect decisions were made, when this was widely reported and had a significant bearing on the final outcome.
These reasons are very deliberate and thought out, and I certainly have no intention of accepting your assertion that these are "clearly invalid" without an explanation. Please explain to me what specific strengths you believe your match summary has over mine, and we can come to a consensus. I'm perfectly happy to work collaboratively, as I've already shown a willingness to do on my last edit. Aspirex (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Deleting this message with the comment that it is "very biased" is not helpful. If you are willing to post your own thoughts on the purpose of the match summary, the reasons why you have chosen to include what you have, and any agreements or disagreements with my above points, then I will resolve this dispute with you in good faith. Aspirex (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is my final attempt to settle this matter between the two of us. I am firm in my belief that the match summary needs to be improved, and I am frustrated by your refusal to discuss the matter. If we cannot work together, I will be forced to branch out to a higher level of dispute resolution or mediation. Aspirex (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- I came here from WP:3O, but unfortunately I don't know enough about cricket to be helpful here. Instead, I'd like to suggest asking this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket - it looks like it has a number of active talk page participants with all the necessary background knowledge for helping to resolve this. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:New Australia's Got Talent.png)
Thanks for uploading File:New Australia's Got Talent.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at List of Mayday episodes, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. William's edit was not vandalism. If you have concerns with SA 295, I would suggest you take it up on the Talk Page. Paris1127 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
List of Mayday Episodes
- They will exclude an episode from the original list. Qantasplanes (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- What's your basis for that?...William 01:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- What an arrogant young man you are, you don't need apostrophes... You must be a loner Qantasplanes (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, may I ask why my spacing edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 was reverted? I was under the impression that citations are directly after punctuation, not after the punctuation and a space. Also, there are no spaces in front of other citations.
Weird username conflict
Hi! I noticed that you are editing the User:TheAirplaneGuy page while logged in as User:Qantasplanes. This is a bit confusing to me. If you changed your username, why are you still editing as Quantasplanes? Maybe you should log out of Quantasplanes and log in as TheAirplaneGuy? I'm guessing it's some kind of bug, because I'm honestly confused as to how this is even possible! Thanks, man. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Alright mate Qantasplanes (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you please fix your signature for this account, as it is appearing as though you are your alternate account when you sign things, as well as engaging in sockpuppetry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370: "Missing, Under investigation"
At Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, you an edit by User:22.214.171.124 changing "Missing, under investigation" → "Missing, Under investigation" in the infobox. Your edit summary was: "Nope, not according to Wikipedia". Could you explain why this is so? Is there a guideline or consensus that says this?
In future, it would be helpful if a clearer explanation (or better yet, a link to the relevant documented reason) were given in the edit summary, although I realise this sometimes gets overlooked in the rush to improve the encyclopedia, especially when many editors are busy editing articles on current events.
Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash
Re your prodding of the Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash article, another editor has deprodded. Had the helicopter been something like a Robinson R44, then I think the case for a stand alone article would be much harder to argue, but the AW139 os not a small helicopter, witghing in at over, lb MTOW and carrying up to 17 people including crew. Added to that is the death of a wikinotable person. If you still feel that a stand aline article is not justified, then WP:AFD is your next option. Mjroots (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- FYI, another editor has taken the article to AfD, the discussion is here. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- So many articles have a wikilink first TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I wanted to drop you a note and gentle (but sincere) warning about your reverts. WP:3RR is the policy that says you can't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours and while you are reverting different info, much of it isn't vandalism but instead just standard stuff. Your reverts might be "better", but 3RR still is in play. 3RR also covers when you are adding material and remove other stuff at the same time. I don't think what you are doing is an aggressive edit war nor do I think you are trying to be disruptive, but this is a very active article and 3RR exists to slow things down just a bit, even when you are doing it in good faith. Keep in mind, reverting vandalism (as defined by WP:VANDAL) doesn't count against you, but be sure it is really vandalism. Wrong info isn't vandalism, for example.
Anyway, I wanted to drop this note off before you got blocked. Tread carefully, friend, and it would probably just be best to stop editing the article for the day, or just stay on the talk page and get consensus for edits first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I see you have reverted my trimming of the infobox caption for reasons which are not entirely clear. Please could you direct me to the discussions on this over the past 12 days, as I am unsure why my change is unacceptable (to my mind an even simpler 9M-MRO pictured in 2011 would suffice for the caption), and what the consensus arrived at is. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hey there, . I'm sorry I can't find more as I'm busy with 'work'... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You proposed deletion of the subject page. I created that page as a redirect, per:
However, I am in support of the page as is, I do not view it as non-notable. We are moving from an autocratic era to a distributed era, where crowd-sourcing is becoming a very powerful tool. However, crowd-sourcing generally does not attributes its successes to individuals, since it is a collective effort. Also, since the individual who finds the solution to a puzzle posted on crowd-sourcing, in many cases, does so by chance, just because they happen to be allocated to block of data that contains a solution. In an egalitarian sense, those who are allocated blocks of data that do not contain the solution are equally valuable, because they eliminate possible (false) solutions and so narrow the search for possible solutions. Anyway, this is a long way of saying that crowd-sourcing, by its nature, does not generally elevate individuals to a status of celebrity ... an established traditional way of demonstrating notability. Rather, it is a way of harnessing a massive brain resource from a very large number of minds to solve complex or tedious problems. See, for example:
- Wisdom of the crowd
- 3 Examples Of Crowdsourcing Science
- Collecting Massive Data via Crowdsourcing
Currently, Tomnod has global exposure because it is a platform to recruit a massive base of volunteers to sift and sort through massive database of images in the hunt for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. However, this is just one of various projects hosted on that platform, so I feel that it is notable. Also, of course, the huge global exposure Tomnod has received from the search for MH370, virtually guarantees that it will be notable in the future. No doubt they have substantially increased their user-base in the process and many will no doubt switch to other Tomnod projects as the MH370 search continues.
Finally, if this page is to be deleted (which I hope it is not), then we should avoid discarding the content that is there currently - although that is more than can conveniently fit on the List_of_crowdsourcing_projects#Tomnod page. Most important, if it is to be deleted, then I would strongly support reverting it to the original redirect.
Enquire (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Use the MH370 talk page
don't threaten me in private, please... you haven't made one justification for your edits (at least not any that are WP:policy) 126.96.36.199 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- You have to chill dude... I have made a justification ad i seems like you haven't seen it. Please stop your disruptive editing or I will get my friend (an admin) TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Air France 447
I made four edits to Air France 447, giving an explanantion of each in the edit summary. You reverted them with no explanation. Please discuss why you have a problem with my changes. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- And you added it without any explanation as well so I assumed it was a vandal deleting info TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Non-free rationale for File:Chinese satellite image of possible debris of MH370.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Chinese satellite image of possible debris of MH370.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (Talk) 21:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:New Australia's Got Talent.png
Thanks for uploading File:New Australia's Got Talent.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Regarding the inclusion of the link, consensus is against you. I will regard this as edit warring if you continue to restore your preferred version without giving a legitimate reason on the talk page. Dustin (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- The see also one? I saw it after I did the edit. Apologies TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Belgian casualties: 05 + 01 dual Belgian-Dutch http://www.dhnet.be/actu/belgique/crash-du-vol-mh17-une-sixieme-victime-belge-53c8fd423570667a638b686b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred301278 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification
|Please carefully read this information:
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.