User talk:Whaatt

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ligonlogogold.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ligonlogogold.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 14:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawson Middle School

Please see my note re notability on the article's talk page TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Whaatt. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that:

You do not yet have enough experience (usually over 250 edit) in the main namespace.

Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Ale_Jrb ^talk 15:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TCExam

What the article really needs are sources, I didn't nominate it just for being spam. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AWB

Hi, you're now approved for this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ligon Middle School

(Start/Low) Not yet a C. Needs some work on the references, should be in proper format, and used again, see <ref name="example">. Also, Phone and fax numbers should not be included. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#What_not_to_include The Lockdowns don't seem to be that encyclopedic. My middle school had a couple of bomb threats one year, but I'm not going to go add them to the page. Also, Courses should be changed to Curriculum and "Clubs/Sports Teams/Councils" should be put in its own section called "Extracurricular activities" and the Chapters section should be expand with an explanation of what chapters are. Calebrw (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bildt

Hi. You realise that placing speedy tags on articles which have valid basic details and are verifiable constitutes as vandalism. If you come across an article which is verifiable and has basic details in future but you find its notability questionable, try adding a {{notability}} tag instead. Cheers Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Mumbai attacks

Hi, I think it's time to nominate this article for GA status. Most or all of the objections that were raised on the review page have been addressed, and the article now looks compact and well-organised. What say? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you nominate the article for FA, instead of asking for class A status? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Mumbai attacks/archive1, I have withdrawn the FAC nomination. Hope to see it back at FAC when you're ready. Good luck! Maralia (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest appreciation

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Whaatt for his numerous contributions to 2008 Mumbai attacks, which eventually helped take the article to GA-status. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plane crash

You reverted without explanation a lot of my edits about the timeline and elevation. I suspect you were making many edits and we had an edit conflict and you undid my edits. The information I put in should go in the article. Americasroof (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for undoing your edits, but instead of replacing an entire section that was already there, please carefully insert your information into a paragraph. Feel free to make further edits as you see fit, and source all information. To format sources correctly, I suggest this handy site [1]. If you have further questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page, or the article's discussion page. Thanks, and have a good day. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 16:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't replace a section. I updated some important info that materially changes inaccuracies in the description. Americasroof (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize exactly what you were trying to do. The paragraph you added about the air traffic control handing from Teterboro to Liberty International, I have added back in to the article, with a properly formatted citation. However, the inaccuracy you mentioned that the planes fell from 1100 feet is arguable. This, unfortunately, is because the source you put and the source already present, are conflicting sources. If you can find an appropriate rationale as to which statistic is correct, then that is the statistic that should be put into the article. Apart from that, I also re-added the following sentences "Authorities said the Piper's “low wing” design made it difficult to see from below and the helicopter's rotors are difficult to see from above. Neither small aircraft was required to have a flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder." Thanks, and have a good day. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Hudson River mid-air collision

Yes, I do think it can be a nominee for Good Article status. Thank you for thinking I am one of the top editors. I was actually at the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, which is on the Hudson River, when the crash happened. Nappyrootslistener (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Nappyrootslistener[reply]

Thanks for fixing my references

Thanks for fixing the references in the sections I added to 2009_Hudson_River_mid-air_collision. I don't have the {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) template usage quite figured out, with play with it in a sandbox for future use. Seanfranklin (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the ref creation tool, I've bookmarked it for future use. Seanfranklin (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA on Hudson crash

Good job on all of the hard work you put into the article. It was nice working with you!--Edge3 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the GA status! I think it's deserving, and thanks for putting up with me. NPOV can be a very tricky thing with GA (General Aviation) accidents; as a pilot I am sensitive to GA getting a fair shake and not being portrayed negatively. The article is well written, neutral and fair right now. Substantial changes will certainly be made with the release of the NTSB Probable Cause report in a few months; I'll leave this article on my Watch List and try to help interpret the report from a pilot's perspective at that time. Seanfranklin (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Haiti earthquake (not Earthquake)

Sorry to wipe out your edits with that redirect, but you were accidentally editing a cut-and-paste move of the article, not the article itself. The real article is at 2010 Haiti earthquake. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

colwidth

That colwidth parameter on {{Reflist}} is useful. So please leave that feature on 2010 Haiti earthquake. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious

I appreciate cleaning up citations, and find this a tedious task. I wonder if you're doing cite templates for consistency or ease. And I suppose a warning, that I tend to type out all my citations because cite templates mess up sometimes and my typing them out is a lot faster. Typing them as I do and cite templates look the same way at the bottom.

Just saying, otherwise, thank you for helping with 2010 Haiti earthquake. --Moni3 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Whaatt! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ligonlogogold.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ligonlogogold.jpg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 2008 Mumbai attacks

2008 Mumbai attacks has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Schierbecker (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]