User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 3

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Blue A330

Hi,

You put 1 A330 as being in the Virgin Blue fleet. The Aircraft is not in service as yet. It is sitting in Melborne airport waiting for work to be done on it. It will be in service June / July

Thanks

--Boeing747-412 (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Blue A330 again

Hi,

I have reverted your edit about the Virgin Blue A330. The aircraft is not in service so does not go into the "in service" column.

--Boeing747-412 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Regourd Aviation

Hello YSSYguy, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Regourd Aviation, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 08:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of aviation accidents and incidents in the UK

Re your removal of the Eirjet incident, I've raised it on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan kirkpatrick redux

(Cross-posting from O Fenian's talkpage, which I have on watchlist in case this guy pops up again.)

Sticking in my oar - it looks like his MO (a few edits a day, spread out over a number of days, like he's trying to stay under the radar). And I found more typos, such as this: Category:Aviation accidents and incidentsin Cape Verde (which he created). Smells like he's back - he's behaving better, but he's still back. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Majuba Aviation crash

I've notified the creator of the article about the AfD. This is something that you ought to have done per the instructions at WP:AFD. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. No problem if you have a genuine reason. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kadena crash

[1] At that time, Okinawa was not part of Japan. It was considered a US occupied territory. Okinawa didn't revert back to Japanese government control until 1972. I don't know if this means the crash should be considered as having occurred in the United States or not, however. Cla68 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan kirkpatrick & Newcrash

Thanks for the heads-up; sorry for the late response, but I've been off-site all day without internet access. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on him, too - and I've got the SPI page on speed-dial, so I'll pop in there if need be, too, when it's formulated.

Pity he's poisoned the well against himself so badly; he looks like he's finally starting to learn a few things about editing. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or not. Looks like he's also User:AirCrash_Euro, and he's using that one to create new articles. I'll open an SPI in a bit. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Central Airlines Flight 22

Thanks for pointing that out at the AfD discussion on the Majuba crash. I've fully protected both Alaska Central Express Flight 22 and ACE Flight 22, which should prevent the recreation of the article against consensus. If the article is to be recreated, then WP:DRV is the correct avenue to achieve this. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your view needed

Could to have a look at Wagga Wagga Airport and the talk page and state your view? Bidgee (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, YSSYguy. You have new messages at Bidgee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bidgee (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning your reversion of a recent DC-3 edit about one flying with Chathams Pacific.

Noticed you recently reverted some IP's contribution claiming that the only DC-3 in scheduled commercial service was being operated by Chathams Pacific. However, the airline's own website says that they do indeed have a restored DC-3 in current scheduled service. Is that what you were doubting, or were you doubting whether it was the only such DC-3 still in airline service? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it was the latter. Sorry for my confusion, and hope you had a nice holiday. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avianca

Hi,

I need you help please. I can come across the Avianca page. Its in a real mess. The page has some layout issues, information seems to be in the wrong place. For example there is a fleet table is under Shareholding.

I have changed the code share area to take less space and get rid of the flags. Tomorrow i will sort the fleet table issue.

I was wondering where i could flag this up for the work needing doing to it for other members to help please?

If you can reply on my talk page.

Thanks

--Boeing747-412 (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Blue

I'd say redirect the article to the existing article for now. Once the name is confirmed, the redirect can be G6'd and the existing article moved to the new title. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Australia aircraft photos

Just noticed three of the photographs don't have licenses on them (File:VHYFC.JPG, File:VHYFCforwardfuselage.JPG and File:VHXFB.JPG). You should license them ASAP as someone will tag them with {{nolicense}}. Bidgee (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The license you want is the one you typically use ({{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL|migration=redundant}})? Bidgee (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I've had no issues with the layout in FireFox 4 using MonoBook as my skin! What theme/skin do you use? Bidgee (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Link

Got a disruptive IP who keeps changing the call sign from Q-Link to the pronunciation (KEW-Link) on the QantasLink article. Bidgee (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weird wiki behaviour

I noticed your comments on bidgee's talk page. My wp has been misbehaving for most of the last two weeks. Has yours resolved itself? If so, what did you do to fix it? Cheers (and thanks in advance), Pdfpdf (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 report

I notice that you've constantly reverted with the IP address 124.182.11.125; and unfortunately for that situation, I've lost my patience and created an AN3 report here. I will notify the IP about this as well. Minima © (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ged UK 12:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Accident article

Just for info User:TopUK has created 1969 Viscount Ringway crash. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK already been raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryan kirkpatrick by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - should've raised it with you. It all happened so fast... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking for a second opinion and you two guys are normally far quicker at spotting them then I am! MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a combination, in my case, of hanging out at Special:Newpages all day and not having a life. _*sob* --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on SPI but perhaps User:狼灰 should be added to the latest report! MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latest report's closed, and that one doesn't seem to have been pinged in the CheckUser. Nevertheless, I'll keep an eye out; if I see anything new I'll bring that one up along with it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partnair

Hi! Regarding http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Partnair_Flight_394&diff=365411967&oldid=364348261

The program had literally stated this. Did it mean that there had been no accidents of major commercial airliners due to fake parts? (I would imagine things like that would be more common with GA) - If there were commercial airliner accidents due to fake parts, which ones are in mind? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at Google News and see if there are other airliner accidents with fake parts involved.

When the program said that there had been no other fake part accidents, it was probably only considering commercial airliners, and not GA

Watching the segment about Partnair, I noticed that neither Schiavo nor Friedman (the people interviewed) discussed GA. Schiavo talked about smaller airlines first, before Air Force One.

The program's literal line is: "In the two decades following the crash of Partnair 394, there wasn't a single fatal accident attributed to bogus parts"

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I'm finding some interesting stuff!

If I do find any other fatal accident cases attributed to fake parts, I'll let you know

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks to the inspiration from the Google searches, I started Unapproved aircraft part - There's a thread on the Aviation WikiProject talk page about it... WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found some answers related to the fatal accident stuff. From the "BLACK MARKET OF THE SKIES SUBSTANDARD AIRPLANE PARTS POSE RISK" article by Frank Bajak of the Associated Press... "An FAA study of its accident-incident database done at the request of the Associated Press found that unapproved parts played a role in 174 aircraft crashes or less serious accidents from May 1973 through April 1996, resulting in 17 deaths and 39 injuries. None involved major commercial carriers. But critics, including outgoing Sen. William Cohen, R-Maine, suggest the FAA may gloss over the role bogus parts played in some accidents because it does not want the onerous responsibility of regulating the parts industry. James Frisbee, quality control chief at Northwest Airlines until his 1992 retirement, is among those who feel bogus parts have contributed to many more accidents than federal records indicate. "It's very, very hard to pin the cause of an accident on a part that failed . . . especially when the airplane is scattered over 5 acres," he said." WhisperToMe (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coffs Airport

Nothing urgent, but could you take a squiz at Talk:Coffs_Harbour_Airport. Cheers Tuddy (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A blush from California

Thanks, dude, for catching me screwing the pooch on Ferdinand Udvardy. The missing References section has been supplied.

My best to the land of cold brew and hot sheilas.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan kirkpatrick

I think he's back again - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryan kirkpatrick. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* He doesn't, no. The saddest thing is that I finally see the makings of a somewhat-halfway-decent editor in him; it's almost like he's actually starting to learn what's expected of him. Pity he's burned so many bridges at this point.

Thanks for the alert. If I see anything else I'll let you know. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's back again as User:BriitshNO1. Just a hunch...his writing has improved considerably, it would seem, and it's not quite the same area of interest as he's had before. But something smells off about this one. I'll open an inquiry in the usual place shortly. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for Pete's sake. SPI opened already. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - should have informed you, but it's been a busy day and I keep getting sidetracked. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European tsunamis

There's a difference between a G5 speedy and the other criteria: the others apply to the page because of its content, but this one only applies because of the creator, and going by the content alone, there's often no reason to delete. For this reason, G5 is much more optional than the others, since deletion runs a significantly better chance of impacting the encyclopedia negatively. Consequently, I decided to apply WP:IAR here. I suppose that you could take it to AFD if you really want, but it's not eligible anymore for G5, both because the first tag has been declined, and also because I made a non-insignificant edit to it, and I'm not a banned or blocked user. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cathay Pacific flight 780

Seems ur a stuburn bunch of people who are rather more interested by rules then to take the opportunity to learn from other peoples' knowledge and experience. Pitty. But hey here we go for some arguments... the reason I do this lies not in the fact that this accident (and article) was so worldshocking, but to me and i am sure to most off the other passengers a board of this flight it was an experience which we will not easely forget... no wonder if you think about the fact we landed on double speed stalled landing and the knowledge that if the plane should have lost momentum we would have crashed (to my impression, but that is only an impression both engines were not functioning 1/2 minute before landing. In relation to the former the high speed made sense to me as the plane was piloted with steep descent just with reason to keep spedd thus momentum so we could get to the runway. My impression that both engines were out lies also in the logic we made a stalled landing as there was no engine power to lift the nose) The reason I know the names of the pilots is easy. Short after take off the commander talks to the passengers telling who they are and giving a description of route, time, weather etc. - second me, my husband and a Steward in business (called Henry) have been helping all the time with the evacuation. After we jumped the emergency chutes first emergency exit at left (evacuation of business class passengers went very fast and smoothly), we ran to the middle emergency chute to catch people at the end of the chute so it could be fastly cleared when other passengers jumped and to avoid people to be hurt by falling on high speed on the tarmac. Passengers were directed to the end of the grassfield (about 300 m further) on the left side of the plane. After a (long) time busses came to pick us up. Me and my husband were still with two crewmembers(we helped with) talking about the happenings so I asked confirmation of the names of the pilots to them with the request to forward us our gratitude and compliments. They didnt do anything more then their job and damn a hell of good job. Taking into account the situation they saved lives of many as circumstances were there we could have crashed. So again here is your source... not from copy and paste articles, nor hearsay but first source. And then I think to myself, who do you think u are to undo every time my adding on a mediaforum which is free ?. Who are you to judge what is important, relevant or what can be written or not in an article ?. I am sure it wouldnt bounce in ur head one microsecond to delete the name of Capt Sully from the article of US Airways Flight 1549.Well these australian guys bringing our plane to save landing were not less then Capt Sully. Gimme a reply on ann.higuet@refaco.nl I will send u even pictures which were taken right after evacuation and proof I was on that flight. Open your mind and dont stay stuck in your own lil world. Kind regards Ann--Caprichasma (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strahan

I can agree with your reason for reverting the template (a) if the template is strictly for scheduled services only - (b) however what do you do with airports that have seasonal usage or chartered usage or genuine historical usage ? - maybe we need a category of airports that are in the status of being (C) utilised for emergencies (when there are serious emergency issues, Strahan is the only operating airport for the west coast for normal aircraft (I think emergency landings have occurred near zeehan in historical context but not sure where) ) (d) seasonal tourist charter usage? If you had ever been in a cessna in a bumpy ride from hobart when the regular services existed, strahan is a relief to get to when queenstown was closed becuase of fog, wind or conditions, I can tell you Satu Suro 07:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah it was less the actual main template - it was more trying to get a heirarchy of used commercially/used erratically/still open but not used much sort of thing - whether that status goes into a separate templete - or simply is stated in category space, that was more my query Satu Suro 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine np - so either a regular commercial one on the template otherwise just a landing strip - checkout Outlaws inc story on the abs news board - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-02/inside-the-war-zones-illegally/2820366 Satu Suro 23:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brumby 600

I ummed and ahhed a bit tooPetebutt (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Familar sock?

See User talk:Dave1185#Familar sock? and WT:AATF#Alaska Airlines Flight 261 for some supicious activity. Could this be another RK sock? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also 2011 Avis Amur An-12 crash. Odds are it's him. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IrAero Flight 103

The relevant passage in the ref for 12 killed is "На борту находились 36 человек, в том числе трое детей. В результате авиационного события пострадали 12 человек, погибших нет. Воздушное судно получило значительные повреждения.", which Google translate renders as "On board were 36 people, including three children. As a result, aviation event affected 12 people who died there. The aircraft received substantial damage."

It is clear that there were 12 deaths, not 12 injuries as claimed in English language sources. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked at WP:Russia, am now happy that injuries is correct. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your favourite sock may be back

You may want to look at Special:Contributions/Ashley_Dovey and in particular the articles FedEx Express Flight 1478 and Tajik Air Flight 3183 which the editor created. They look suspiciously like the work of Ryan Kirkpatrick. I note that the editor also seems to be active on List of terrorist incidents, 2011, which I believe is another one of Ryan's haunts.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Especially given that the FedEx aircraft was a "Beoing 727"! He's also created 2011 Falcon HTV-2 test crash. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calidus

Sorry for the delay in replying. I started the Calidus page on the German AutoGyro aircraft, which someone then switched to the Rotorcraft version. The page should cover both versions, I reckon. User:arrivisto Arrivisto (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion

Hi. I was wondering if you would please give an opinion on the Qatar Airways Talk Page on the section Go-Around Controversy please? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Hello YSSYguy! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconds From Disaster

I'm not putting them out of the airing order, because it is the airing order, see the Nat Geo UK and Aus website. Qantasplanes (Talk!) 05:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply

...wanted to say <3 LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rex

The one of the two aircraft is back in Wagga Wagga, the other is due back mid to late this week (No photos but plan to head out to the airport on Friday or Saturday to see if both are parked outside or are in the hangar). Bidgee (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see them however both hangar doors were closed but while at the airport I did notice that VH-EEB is now on the tarmac rather then out on the airport field (where it was starting to sink). May not get a chance to head back out to the airport for a few weeks due to moving and also being behind on my studies. Bidgee (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PNG Dash 8 crash page move

I know that you may dislike this comment, but aren't you an administrator? Can't I ask you for help about this problem. If you are, what should I do?

Thanks, Springyboy (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women in warfare article

Could you leave in the stuff about women in the military in the women in warfare article? I know they weren't actively involved in warfare, but its still relevant to the topic of warfare in general. Thank you. Asarelah (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I take some issue with the idea that its actually offensive to include the women you purged from the article, seeing as its just an article and not a hall of fame or anything, I do concede that renaming the article might be a good idea. Perhaps "women in warfare and the military" might be appropriate... Asarelah (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Napier

This is to inform you that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Napier. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:VHCMH.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VHCMH.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. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:VHFVI.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VHFVI.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. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploads

Hi YSSYguy, I notice that you have uploaded a heap of images in the past, and in the current, to WP for use on articles. In future, would you be able to upload the photos directly to Commons, so that they can be utilised across ALL Wikimedia projects. Uploading them to enwiki only limits their use to English Wikipedia, and I am sure that other language projects would like to use these photos as well. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, you know you can use global login as outlined at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login - you might want to do that, I doubt anyone else would have snagged your username as yet, so you would be good to go on Commons already. Cheers Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special:MergeAccount to make the process quick. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]