User talk:YSSYguy

• User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 1
• User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 2
• User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 3
• User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 4
• User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 5

Bulgaria Air

Why did you erase my edit on Bulgaria Air? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GogoLive123 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it was a bad edit. As per my edit summary it was badly-written, Wikipedia must not be used as a reference; and the incidents are not notable enough for inclusion anyway. Because they aren't notable incidents, it is not worth the time to fix up the bad writing and to find good references. I see you have been warned before about using Wikipedia as a source. YSSYguy (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ow sorry I toke the wrong references I will put the original ones back and you will see by yourself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GogoLive123 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, because the information itself is not notable. They are not notable incidents. YSSYguy (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't judge by yourself if they are notable or not, they are incidents as important as a crash read them before directly erasing them!

@GogoLive123: I read them, they're not. I think you are trying to discredit Bulgaria Air over what are normal problems faced by all airlines around the world. Lightning strikes are an everyday occurrence. Bird strikes are an everyday occurrence - they occur more than a thousand times a year just in Australia. System failures are an everyday occurrence. Even engine cowls come off aircraft many times a year. You sourced these incidents from the French Wikipedia, which had as its sources posts on an internet Message Board - that is not a reliable source and it is unuseable. Stop trying to make something from nothing. YSSYguy (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi YSSYguy, so, let us start from the begging. Regarding the ATR you have removed it from retired fleet without any explanation. According to what you said, I've put as "Stored" as it is it's real status in Bulgaria Air at the mometn. Regarding the second Boeing 737-300, it's going under maintenence at the moment at Lufthansa Techinik Sofia and it will enter shortly service. Second, one of the A319's have been leased back to the leasing company more than 1 month ago. Unfortunately official information from the Bulgaria Air haven't been issued, because of BAD MEDIA POLICY. Third in Bulgaria unfortuantely we don't have good media's which are providing with the relevant information. So, if we need to wait for planespotters to update it, it might take another month or 2. I think it's not acceptable that the information will be irrelevant for the next 2 month, because of the stupid "referrence rule". If you don't trust my informatio regarding the A319 you might call Bulgaria Air and ask them if this is so, or not. I don't like loosing my time on something I'm not sure of... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashine1984 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@YSSYguy, are kidding me??? See the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btxdv_BBWiw also find the info about the ATR42-300 inn Bulgaria Air magazine https://www.air.bg/content/magazine/pdf/435500754.pdf (Bulgaria, too, figures in the history of the ATr 42. The fleet of Bulgaria Air and Hemus Air boasts two ATr 42-300s (LZ-ATR and LZ-ATS) configured to carry 46 and 48 passengers, respectively) and tell me againg that they've never operted an ATR 42... About the A319 you will see that it's been leased back, but of course you're waiting for Planespotters which ridiculous, but anyway we will have wrong information for the next 1-2-3 months :D

@Mashine1984 Once again you have misunderstood me; I did not say that the airline never operated an ATR, I said that you need to provide a reference that it did. You have found a good reference (the Bulgaria Air magazine), so that is good. Again with the A319 you need to provide a reference - it doesn't have to be planespotters.net. YSSYguy (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Crew names

Hi, just a quick question for you about using names of crews in fatal accidents. Is this http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/death-crash-airline-did-not-know-about-snow-danger-1.120315 a bad reference? Is that why the names were removed from Loganair Flight 670A? BTW... nice edit on List of preserved Douglas A-4 Skyhawks. Samf4u (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There are several factors. I'm not saying that this is the case in this instance, but there is a tendency to include information in a WP article just because it is in the source. I apply a "comprehension test" to all information in all articles, which is 'does the information aid in my understanding of the subject' and except in certain instances like MH370 or the Germanwings crash, names do not help to understand what happened. This is why I removed the names of eyewitnesses from the article about the F/A-18 that crashed into the apartment complex in Virginia Beach - in that case I thought such information was actually an impediment to a reader's understanding of the subject. It is also why I made this edit - the info just wasn't needed. In this specific case there is another consideration for me, which is that those two guys died basically through no fault of their own, so why mention their names on a high-profile website such as Wikipedia? There is also WP:NOTMEMORIAL to consider. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand. That makes sense. I may have lost sight that WP articles should contain only concise facts. I'm going to borrow your "comprehension test test" and try to use it from now on. Samf4u (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I handle editwikigu only one account. Editwikig is a colleague in same office with similar Indian feelings. You can ask her if she has not left already. As I know, she started with Wikipedia before but saying will give up as too Technical and the way some editors handled Kashi Samaddar, a pride of Indians. Travelling all Countries with Indian passport facing Visa problems & making it to Guinness is difficult- isn’t? We used to get much less Visa on arrival than British or Americans, if you know. However, he succeeded and many Journalists wrote good about him around the World though few attacked forgetting great achievements, why you should allow such complicated articles of Daily Mail on him? Mr Samaddar is nice person. Even British Adventurer Mr Graham Hughes praised him and all these are available on Net. I started recently, edited few and find interesting but I am still learning. Thanks for helping. Being a Journalist, I have interest and I working on article Kashi Samaddar searching various sources as guided by you. Should I go ahead doing it or forget? Regards. Editwikigu (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

The AfD will soon end for Skyway Enterprises Flight 7101. No matter how it ends you "Make good fight Danielson". Samf4u (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hola Airlines

I noticed you have now prodded Hola Airlines, I would have thought any airline that actually operated flights would be notable even Mint! So I was just trying to understand why you think they should be deleted rather than just removing the prod, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I just came across the article while hunting down and removing "fleet with an average age"-type text from airline articles, I have no particular investment in whether is deleted or it survives. All I have done is judge it by my understanding of the General Notability Guidelines; all there is by the way of sources, is database listings. I used to subscribe to the point of view that an airline is intrinsically notable, but this has been disproved in many an AfD discussion. I am not having a go at you, but when assessing a PROD, it seems to me that whether an article survives or not is pretty-much down to the whim of the admin looking at it. Feel free to de-PROD it, I have tidied it up to what I think is a reasonable standard. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood but it does have a Flight reference to the fact it exists, tempted to de-prod but I will look to see if I can find anything else on it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Uploads to illustrate article Ice protection system

Hello YSSYguy,

thank you for your uploads to illustrate Ice protection system — a great contribution to the article. I think they would be a valuable addition to Wikipedias (and sisters) in other languages too. Is there a reason why you chose to upload them to English Wikipedia, but not to Wikimedia Commons? Ariadacapo (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wheeltug vs Taxibot reciprocity

Let me know your thoughts behind the deletes. Talk:WheelTug#Marketplace_section_expansion.28Taxibot.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.148.72 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I would actually prefer you and anyone you choose to bring review as to whether the Wheeltug entry needs a page vs the entry in it's parent company Borealis Exploration. Most of the Wheeltug page is a big PR dump written by a company officer, user:Chovesh mostly cited to company press releases either published in industry publications or the company website, the Borealis page has a short concise description of the company and its product. The rest of Borealis's subsidiary wiki pages have been merged to the parent at this point. Solomon(for now)37.26.150.228 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Radar imaging

An article that you have been involved in editing, Radar imaging , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Swiss Air Force Inventory list

PLEASE Notice:

Pictures make the chart more attractive to the reader. Images are information carriers and give the reader a first impression of the aircraft to the publically available information. As can be seen, this (pictures in the chart) is used inventory lists for other Air Force on Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Czech_military_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_aircraft_of_the_Turkish_Air_Force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Air_Component#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_Air_Forces#Aircraft_Inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Netherlands_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Air_Force#Equipment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_Russian_military_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazian_Air_Force#Equipment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory

Just to name a few.

The PC-12 is used by armasuisse to calibrate the FLORAKO System, MIDs Link-16 and MALS Radar. but it is also used by the Swiss Air Force as Transport aircraft (for eg to sweden when the Swiss AF PC-21 had a training week in Sweden. Also the PC-12 is used in Swiss Air Force Training as unknown enemy aircraft. The PC-12 is equpedt wit a Swiss Air Force IFF. See also Swiss Air Force Homepage: http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/dokumentation/assets/aircraft/pc12.html

The DA42 Is used by armasuisse for testing operations of UAV in civil used VFR airspace. But it is also used as liaison aircraft by armasuisse and the air Force, Armasuisse pilots are also part time swiss air Force Pilots so if for eg armasuisse Pilot is in charge as Chief Air defense he can use the DA42or armasuisse PC-6 HB-FOG as liaison aircraft. The DA42 has the military regr R-711 and is equiped with a Swiss Air Force IFF. See also Swiss Air Force Homepage: http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/dokumentation/assets/aircraft/da42.html

The KZD-85 is also part of the Swiss Air Force, it is operatet by Swiss Air Force personal, it is to train the Ground Based air Defense who is in the Swiss Military part of the Air Force. Also the regristration of the UAV is in line with the Swiss Air Force regristrations.

See also Swiss Air Force Homepage: http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/dokumentation/assets/aircraft/kzd85.html

FFA P-16 (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me some of the other articles that need to be fixed up. I haven't bothered to read what you have written above, it is obvious that your English is still terrible. YSSYguy (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I have asked now an admin who is working often with aviatic topics to have a look at our disput, lets see what he decide. FFA P-16 (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Prinair 277-Mexico Learjet crash

I didn't insert Prinair Flight 277 into the article about Jenny Rivera's crash because I created it; I did it because I saw that someone else had inserted the Learjet crash's article into another CFIT crash's article so I assumed that the Jenny Rivera crash's article had been classified as so. That is what the media and everyone else in this geographical area seems to think happened anyways. As I then saw that the Mexican crash's article mentions nothing about CFIT, I will not get into a revert war about it with you. Another thing is you seem to have taken a dislike of me since you first read an article I created. I know Wikipedia is not taken-by some anyways-as a place where we can come and socialize like normal people do when in groups, but I have done nothing for you to dislike me. Antonio Taking Off Martin (te escucho) 07:54, July 11, 2015 (UTC)

Sichuan Airlines

Hello, please tell me why you reverted my Fleet gallery edit on Sichuan Airlines? Nguyen Quoc Trung Talk 09:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC).

As per WP's image policies, which state in part " the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." The gallery did not meet those requirements. YSSYguy (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Nguyen Quoc Trung Talk 12:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

Pitot

Right now, pitot probe is a redirect to pitot tube. Can you provide refs for drawing a distinction? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There is my twenty-six years experience of working on aircraft pitot systems; a pitot probe contains a pitot tube and sometimes on small aircraft there is no probe, there is literally just a piece of metal tubing jutting out into the airstream. The accident report uses the word "probe" many, many times and the word "tube" three times, and one of those times is "probe tubes" i.e. the tubes inside the probes. I thought Mathglot's edit was unnecessary in going from a precise term to a generic term; and it had a typo that I didn't feel like searching for to correct amongst all of that text - easier just to undo. YSSYguy (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but if we're to convey a distinction, we'll need reliable sources, right? LeadSongDog come howl! 04:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the accident report calls them "probes", is that a sufficiently reliable source? On that subject, how reliable is it in WP terms that someone conducted some original research and changed the article based on his/her interpretation of the number of Ghits for each term? YSSYguy (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a source that explains the difference, not just uses the different terms. As it stands we have a redirect in place suggesting the two terms mean the same, and I've not yet found a source that distinguishes them. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Flight Hub

Hi YssYguy, It's about the topic Flight Hub that you redirect to Airline Hub. I understand that why you did that redirect, but Flight Hub need to have it's own page. The terms Flight Hub have been in use since WWII and the word is being more and more in use on the internet. You can also find some important WWII flight hub that people still honor today and veteran related to it. Anyway, I think its fair to leave the page on its and and I will be more than happy to work with you to improve this topic. thanks :)

Pimas page

i sent two emails referance the list page to the Wiki nothing yet. can you put back the edit were the link was deleted. I would have been nice if you let me know about the issue and have time to work on it before locking then deleteing the link. if you block something before you tell or let the person have a chance to fix it is bit harsh don't you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westca (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I will not restore the page, that is not something I can do, an Admin has to do that. It is not at all "harsh" to do what I did, it is a normal procedure when dealing with copyright violations, which leave Wikipedia at risk of being sued for those violations. I have been working on an alternative, see Talk:List of aircraft in the Pima Air & Space Museum/Temp. YSSYguy (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I sent this in a few days ago via email with POCs. nothing back yet. saw your idea. the one issue is that when I help out there (every other weekend) I am asked. my dad (grandfather) was in x unit do you have a aircraft from that unit? even if it was not a "the plane or model" there loved one was on it helps them connect. that's why we put the history of a aircraft on the wiki in the end all Pima wants to put info to show that its a growing place that if you have not been there in a year there is something to see or they have found out new information on an older plane. ie like when they found bags and receipts form the Berlin airlift during a aircraft refresh.

Hi Cliff –

Here’s the memo we worked on yesterday. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done regarding all this. It’s above my head, but thank goodness, YOU know what to do! J Thank you for your help yesterday!

---

I hereby affirm that I represent the Arizona Aerospace Foundation at the Pima Air & Space Museum as the creator of the material is not copyrighted of images and text of the Pima Air & Space Museum web page.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.4.43 (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting the Pima museum, or for promoting any organization for that matter. The information exists on the Pima website, there is no need to repeat it on Wikipedia. YSSYguy (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Undoing of revision to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Hi, I noticed you undid my recent revision to the article Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 stating that what I added "did not aid understanding of the subject." I had felt rather confused about who the captain of the other plane was and in particular about where he was in relation to flight 370— I also felt it was pertinent that he knew the voice of the copilot, though he could not understand what the copilot was saying. Following this with a brief statement indicating that the captain of the other plane did not feel at all concerned about this, as this kind of lost contact, even on an emergency channel, is apparently very common among planes in flight, was central to the overall lack of concern at that point for the status of flight 370. Did you really feel this didn't aid your understanding of what was going on? Do you think it might not aid someone else's understanding? It certainly would have aided mine if it had been there when I first read the article and before I made my edit. Thoughts on this? Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 06:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

LATAM Airlines image

I've had a look at WP:CSD, and the best thing I think you could do is tag it for G6 with the reason given as "Original research". By all means link to sources that state the livery will not be revealed. As for MKM, maybe a post at ANI is called for. I do feel we've made a little progress as he is at least using talk pages, even though it's mostly to complain that he's not getting his own way. If you do post at ANI, be sure to mention me using {{U}} and I'll get a notification. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that will work, as the image is on Commons. I have had a look at Commons' deletion policies and there appears to be no remedy under their rules. YSSYguy (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do over at Commons. BTW, he's been blocked and has announced his retirement. Probably for the best if he stays that way. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

BAP Union

Hi. I have added some paragraphs to the article and I would like you to improve the writing, because I'm not a native speaking english man. Thanks. --Elelch (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Done YSSYguy (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm Nrwairport. I noticed that you recently removed some content on American Airlines fleet without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Nrwairport (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As all of the edits had edit summaries, it might be more useful to not leave an automatic message for an editor of good standing with 20,000 edits under his belt. YSSYguy (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This is probably AugustinusHal, who is probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyntiamaspian. - BilCat (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

YSSYguy, if you would like to make a change in the future, please discuss on the article's talk page. At WP:AV, we have decided that each individual aircraft with two types of different destinations must be marked with that type (i.e. Domestic, international) Nrwairport (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that you are not AgustinusHal, but if you could actually show the specific discussion as to what we have decided, instead of just typing four letters and a colon inside two pairs of square brackets, that might be a bit more useful too. YSSYguy (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

YSSY, so you really think the user is an admin with 500,000 edits and has been on WP for over six years? Those are the types of claims Hal was making too, not to mention reverting you for no substantive reasons.and giving users warnings they don't deserve. Seems suspicious as Hal was just recently blocked. - BilCat (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No I don't think s/he has that many edits or is an admin, but I formed the impression that Nrwairport is a native speaker of English, while AgustinusHal clearly isn't. Nice that AgH is blocked - he was bizarre to say the least. Cheers, and thanks for your support. YSSYguy (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)