Open main menu

User talk:Airplaneman

I'm busy and will be editing infrequently. Please allow me some time to respond to queries.

(chat · email me · 747 · subpages · numbers · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights · all logs)

Total articles: 5,971,642       Good articles: 30,315       Featured articles: 5,672

Leave me a message!

This page was last edited by Airplaneman (talk | contribs) 4 days ago.

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Intel® Core™ 2 Duo. Since you had some involvement with the Intel® Core™ 2 Duo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

  Administrator changes

  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

  Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.


  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk: DotgirlfineEdit

Draft:Ashi Singh I did not edit or include references in this article, right now I am working On this edit she recently won award and get notable media coverage too.Please can you remove protection on this draft page. Dotgirlfine (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dotgirlfine: Sorry, I'm not ready to do so, especially given the most recent AfC result today as reviewed by JalenFolf (talk · contribs). As a note, I first heard about the page here. Airplaneman 20:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I misunderstood. I didn't realize your account wasn't able to edit the draft page until very recently. Looks like Draft:Ashi Singh was semi-protected by Sir Sputnik (talk · contribs) due to sockpuppetry. Since you are able to edit the page now, I don't think I need to take any action. Airplaneman 20:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

21 SavageEdit

I am thinking that things have calmed down enough that we can safely lower the protection level. Maybe ECP for now? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done—Let's try it. Airplaneman 21:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Joanna HausmannEdit

Hello Airplaneman

Would you please check the edit of 2a02:c7d:6bd6:4300:5815:3138:aba2:29fb in the article Joanna Hausmann???

All of the claims against Hausmann spreding false information are true an can be verified by the previously given references!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C5:6F1B:DBF0:8C12:B178:1B48:D2AB (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at them when the page was reported to Requests for Page Protection. It's fine to include reliably-sourced criticism of a subject, but the edit history in recent days reeks of conflict of interest and unbalanced editing. That's why I semiprotected it. Furthermore, sources such as YouTube and Daily Mail are certainly not reliable. Airplaneman 17:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Gemma O'Doherty Defamation.Edit

Gemma O'Doherty's wiki page is being used to defame the subject by suggesting racism. The quote ascribed is a 2 second snippet taken out of context from a 2 hour interview on Youtube. In context, the comment related to a wider discussion on the legacy of the Easter Rising and Wolfe Tone. Please remove the offending quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have removed the problematic quote. Airplaneman 19:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response; however, the user Bastun has reverted your change, yet again. I believe it is the same person that is the source of the quote and has a personal issue with the subject of the Wiki page, i.e. an issue with Gemma O'Doherty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at this discussion. Airplaneman 21:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see you caved in under pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Constructive. I didn't expect any different from you. Airplaneman 19:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Tori Kelly Request - THANK YOU, FLYING GUY!Edit

Sir, I appreciate you so much. I usually spend my time on a book reading, playing drums and writing literary stuff on my normal days, hence my limited knowledge on Wikipedia.

I reverted a couple of Kelly's "vandalized" edits because I thought it's a "must" when you see someone revert it for an unknown reason. I already said it but I'll say it again, thank you so much for acknowledging the fact that I am very much new to this (vast) community of 'Pedia. I look forward to some more cool tips/advice coming from you, Sir!

From a busy musician and everything else in between,


tgave 08:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishagives (talkcontribs)

You're welcome—I try to help when I can. I'll respond on your talk page. Airplaneman 18:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.


  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nicolas SenzembaEdit


Vous diffusez des informations erronées et non conformes sur un membre de ma famille. Certaines informations sont diffamatoires et sont des injures à caractères publiques. Vous modifiez systématiquement les informations que je corrige et vous bloquez l'accès en rétablissant vos injures et mensonges. Par conséquent j'adresse ce jour une plainte au procureur de la république à l'encontre de toutes personnes diffusant ces mensonges et injures publiques. Votre adresse IP a été identifiée et quelque soit vos origines ou votre pays vous serez poursuivis et nous demandons réparation ainsi que des dommages et intérêts.

A bon entendeur ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senzemba (talkcontribs) 23:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Signpost suggestionEdit

Absolutely, please cover the Wikimedia Summit 2019. The only problem I see is the timing. Our publication date is March 31, so your contribution will have to go in a month later. The format could be whatever you feel is best. Anything from a 1 or 2 paragraph blurb in the News and Notes page to the main contribution on that page (say 500-700 words), or even a "Special Report" if there is much more to say. Please do give me a heads up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom by April 15 (tax day) on how much you have, what format you'd prefer, and maybe even a good draft. Thanks for stepping forward.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Sounds good! I'll be in touch by April 15. Airplaneman 03:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I unfortunately have some IRL commitments that require my immediate attention up to April 17. I will give a heads up with my draft by April 18. I have enough content for at least 500 words, but it's not something I'm comfortable putting on-wiki yet. The general format I'm leaning towards right now is a conference summary supplemented with plenty of links to strategic planning documents and discussions, as well as more general conference content that community members may find useful. Airplaneman 18:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually… here's the start. Airplaneman 19:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
It looks pretty good so far. Additional content would be great if you want it. Fine tuning can certainly wait. Thanks Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Thanks for the feedback. I'll have time next weekend to finish it up and probably ~double its current size. The primary concern I have right now is overlinking. I took a look at the Signpost style guide, but its recommendations don't cover overlinking when it comes to obscure terms (and the Wikimedia bureaucracy, as with any bureaucracy, is full of them). Currently, my strategy is to include most of them in the body of the article and additional links at the bottom. Other options would be to footnote them or include all of them in the "links" section. Do you think my current strategy is overwhelming? Also, would it be good to move this conversation to the Newsroom and link the draft there? I'm not sure exactly where it would go. Airplaneman 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Smallbones: I've submitted the draft for review here. I'll also be asking other Wikipedians directly for input. Airplaneman 00:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.Edit

Hello Airplaneman,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on named #wikipedia-en-appleinc connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.

RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Extend semi-protection?Edit

Hi, 4 days ago you semi-protected Patrick Moore (consultant) due to persistent disruptive editing. Could you extend that protection a little longer, or do I need to make a new request for it? The article subject is still directing his followers there to edit it by [tweeting] about it. Safrolic (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Safrolic. I've semi-protected the page for a month. Airplaneman 20:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that, could you do the same for the Greenpeace article you protected at the same time? I wasn't paying attention to it, but it looks like it's got the same persistent issue. Safrolic (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done, also for a month. Airplaneman 01:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Re-protection pleaseEdit

G'day from OZ; at the beginning of the month you semi-protected the Korean Air article. The protection has expired and the same person is back, making the same edits - the IP address changes all the time, sometimes several times in a single day, but it's always the same thing: focus on articles about South Korean airlines, with removal of images, adding flagicons to destination lists and a penchant for writing, "all fleets are" stored/sold/leased etc. instead of "all aircraft are...". Anyway, if you think it's warranted, could you apply semi-protection again please. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done by JJMC89 following an RFPP request. All the best, Airplaneman 13:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Macaulay Culkin incorrect nameEdit

Yo, on Macaulay Culkin's wikipedia bar on the right, his name is incorrect as it says his middle name is Carson, however as the article says, his middle name is in fact Macaulay Culkin, thus making his name Macaulay Macaulay Culkin Culkin cheers, boi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science bon (talkcontribs) 14:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest discussing it here. Airplaneman 18:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


Hello Airplaneman. It was very nice to meet you in Berlin. Cheer, and best wishes! Rehman 06:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: Likewise! I've volunteered to write a recap of the event for the Signpost (to be published near the end of the month). Would love your feedback on it once I write it (will have a draft by April 15) if you'd be interested in that. Airplaneman 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be glad to :) Rehman 06:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Chocolate Bhutlah and other articlesEdit

I'm interested in peppers and I love to learn more about them because they fascinate me, but I saw that on the Template:Chili peppers template, there's currently one link to an article that's red. I've also noticed that it was deleted because there weren't enough information coming from reliable sources to back it up, so I thought about recreating it again but this time with the information coming from more reliable, trustworthy sources. I'll try to collect some information from those sources and put it in the article. One problem though is that I don't know if I can provide as much detail, but you know, since Wikipedia is a community encyclopedia, that could only be one small problem as others could possibly provide more depth and detail to it. What do you think? Should I recreate it? Also, is there like a special page or something where I can find all the pages that don't exist yet in one place? I mean, I know the English version of Wikipedia has the most information (obviously) and how it already has over 5,8 million articles providing the most information, but I still want to help contribute to even the English wiki too. --Scrooosh (talk · contribs) 10:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Scrooosh: I like your positive and constructive outlook on things. That's the right way to approach this place: it's always a work in progress. Regarding Chocolate Bhutlah: you're right, it was deleted for failing to satisfy the notability guidelines. By all means, if you can find sources that counter the deletion rationale (especially WP:SIGCOV), you could make a draft and ask people for some feedback. I would not recommend re-creating the article in the mainspace right away. The article before it was deleted was indeed inadequately sourced (only two sources: [1] and [2]). I don't have time to look for sources myself to definitively answer the question of whether you should recreate it, but the links to the notability guidelines I've given above should point you in the right direction.
As for adding small things: of course! If you find something that's missing and you can back it up with a reliable source, go ahead! I think adding small things is way easier than writing a whole article from scratch. Other things you can do to help improve the content on this site include anti-vandalism and copyediting. That's what I mainly do nowadays (though I'm itching to get back into article writing again… soon™…) I did notice from your talk page that you've encountered some trouble with editing. I'd say that's normal for people just starting out. Wikipedia has a steep learning curve. I'm still learning something new every day, mostly by talking to other editors (like the conversation we're having now!) or looking things up (I do a lot of this).
See this list of redlinks. It's not "all the pages that don't exist" all in one place (I think that would be impossible), but it's something. Also, as I have said at the top of my talk page, I'm a bit busy at the moment, so I can't guarantee quick responses to messages. Hopefully this helps, and happy editing! Airplaneman 19:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
First of all, I understand if you are busy sometimes and that you can't guarantee quick responses and on top of that how you're an administrator on the English wikipedia and everything. I thought about creating a draft article and then submitting it for review of other editors before making the article in the mainspace and then improving it there for it to be a complete, final version of the article. I've heard about copyediting here, but I never really knew what it meant until you told me now, and if I see articles needing copyediting, additional citations etc. I'll try to copyedit and add some citations too if I can. I love this place, it's really good to have an encyclopedia trying and succeeding at covering most things and put all the information in one place, that's really cool.
It's true what you said about the learning curve too though, at the moment, I'm pretty swamped currently and don't know where to start in even creating a draft article at the moment but I'm sure that's going to be easier and easier over time. If you noticed the recent stuff we're talking about on my user page like today for example, you must've also noticed that I sometimes misinterpret things because I haven't looked at stuff like articles that could've prevented me misinterpreting them.
But I'll try to prevent that stuff from happening in the future because I also obviously want to make useful edits that I know won't get reverted because I also want to make this a place with more information too like any other editor here. My first edit was though for instance an edit that was a useful edit and it can actually be really rewarding when you make one of those kinds of edits. Also, thanks for all the information, I'll be sure to check those out! --Scrooosh (talk · contribs) 20:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

  Technical news



  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Moved the articleEdit

to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view. If you'd like to edit it some more, you might shorten it just a bit (leave in all the content though!) and make it sound less "official". (I could do some of it myself, but better if you do it). I'd like to try to keep up with the strategy process, so your further contributions would be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Thanks! I'll take a stab at your suggestions soon. I know you asked that it be shortened, but would it be appropriate to add a first person view (e.g., "I thought this and that about the strategy process")? Airplaneman 16:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you can give a personal view, but it could be tricky. Right now it reads much like an official report (e.g. by WMF) - if you just add a couple of personal comments on top of that, it could be jarring - so you'd have to make the rest of the report read less "official". In any case your personal view shouldn't be long and complicated, rather focus on 2 or 3 spots where you might point out "a surprising outcome was that ..." or "the most important decision was ..." readers will understand that that is your personal view, so you don't need to say "I". Save the personal view for important the parts that would be hard to otherwise document. Hope this helps. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


Can I be a bot please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis2628 (talkcontribs) 12:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dennis2628: No, you cannot "be a bot". Check out WP:BAG if you're interested in bot approval. Airplaneman 01:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I be a staff

Can you clarify? Nothing you've said really makes any sense. Airplaneman 20:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.


  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Visiting ChicagoEdit

Hello, I'll be visiting Chicago from Australia to talk about WikiMedia at a conference (APA_2019) from August 8-11 at McCormick Place. If there happens to be any kind of meetup, I'd love to meet with the local Wikipedians (I should be flexible most evenings). There may also be a couple of other inter-state wikipedians attending. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 06:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Thanks for your message, and sorry for the late reply! Life's been crazy. Our listhost got your message. I'll ping the user group at the beginning of July regarding interest in an August evening meeting; I'd say we can count on at least a few people showing up. My schedule is really up in the air right now, but if I'm in town, I'll be at the meetup. I also appreciated your fix to meta:Wikimedians of Chicago User Group! All the best, Airplaneman (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Airplaneman: Looking forward to it! Just a note that the only evening I'm booked out on is Friday Aug 9th, but otherwise I'm pretty flexible. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 08:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

  Administrator changes

  AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

  Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC) ErrorEdit

In the link above it says, "The long-term average duration is 29.530587981 days[4] (29 d 12 h 44 min 2.8016 s)."

The time elapsed for the synodic months is getting longer at an approximate rate of about 0.2 seconds per millennium; that's 0.02 s per century and .002 s per year. I looked up the citation that was provided and I don't see this reference, and so I assume it was calculated using the "29.530587981" reference. I've researched this quite a bit and I am unable to find any credible source that cites anything other than the 2.8 seconds. I believe this is because this "average" duration is constantly increasing at the rate of 0.002 seconds annually, and so it does not make sense to go beyond 2.8 right now because 2.8 is so close and any finer precision misleads the reader into thinking that precision is accurate, and it's not.

I recommend that this be revised to 2.8, or at least get some formal, credible source to confirm the added precision with an explanation of how that precision is changing year after year.

I don't know how to dispute this reference, and I stopped doing updates with Wikipedia for many years after a very frustrating experience last time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markmain (talkcontribs) 21:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Markmain: Unfortunately, I don't have time to review the sources myself, but the appropriate place to raise this question would be at the article's talk page. In this case, it's Talk:Lunar month. Best, Airplaneman (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of link language wrapper templates (June 2019)Edit

A discussion has started about wrapper templates of {{Link language}}. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. E^pi*i batch (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (Retro is my main account.)

A capful of potential trouble @ Xinjiang re-education campsEdit

Please disregard what follows. The article has others curating it and reverting POV edits. But thanks anyway. Tapered (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm sending this because you're the most recent Admin to protect Carlos Gardel, which I much appreciate.

A new numbered editor re-reverted ([Revision 902459247]) a recent edit of mine, ie [902449535]. I wrote what I thought was an accurate and concise reason for my edit. I also created a Talk page for this new editor, with what I thought an appropriate welcoming. The quality of the explanation for the editor's re-reversion convinced me not to re-revert again—as it would likely lead to edit warring. Please look at the situation and respond as you deem appropriate. Regards Tapered (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

  Guideline and policy news



  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  Wishing Airplaneman a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CptViraj (📧) 15:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

  Administrator changes

  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes


  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!Edit

  I have not seen you around lately so it was great to see your name pop up on my watch list. Thanks for the work at RFPP. :) S0091 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Aww, thank you, S0091! How'd you know I love strawberries? And yes, life's been crazy, so I haven't been on as much. It's always nice to hear from fellow editors. All the best, Airplaneman (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar thanksEdit

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you very much for your work at WP:RFPP. I appreciate it greatly. — Ched (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I know that technically I could have clicked the button, but I've been in enough discussions involving Eric over the years that I'd imagine shouts of "involved" would have come from somewhere. I appreciate you looking at it, and making the tough calls. — Ched (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ched. You're right, these sorts of decisions are tough calls, and it helps to have a fresh set of eyes. All the best, Airplaneman (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey there Airplaneman - while I don't agree, Eric has asked to have the protection removed from his talk page (email - I mailed him first). It's his page (well - you know what I mean), so it should probably be unprotected. Thought I should put that request/info here. Sorry?Please?Thank You? IDK. — Ched (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks like you are AFK at the moment - I lifted the protection. — Ched (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ched: Makes sense to me! Airplaneman (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.



  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi Airplaneman. Sorry to disturb you. A while ago you correctly chided me for un-civil comments I left on User:Kyteto's talk page. You were right about this and I apologized to Kyteto on his talk page. Unfortunately, Kyteto has taken to leaving rather un-civil edit summaries such as this one. When I asked Kyteto to remain civil, as I have tried to be, he reacted with an accusation of bad faith. Would you be willing to remind Kyteto that civility is a two-way street, and applies to him as much as to other editors? Many thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Mirror Cracked and Kyteto: I sense frustration here from both parties. A solution to this friction isn't as simple as saying who's wrong here and asking for apologies. It's an ongoing issue. With this context in mind, I can understand where the frustration is coming from. Reading into the situation, it's clear you both take pride in your writing. I'd be annoyed to see my work characterized as "rushed, knee-jerk," and I'd also be annoyed at being called uncivil by someone I've disagreed with before, regardless of the actual merit of these comments. That being said, I'd encourage more assuming good faith when dealing with each others' writing going forward. This includes, as with the above case, edit summaries that don't attack the work of others. If there continue to be large-scale disagreements on writing style, I'd look into getting a third opinion on that or to seek dispute resolution, but from what I've seen, that's a disproportional response to the problem. Again, I understand that producing good quality writing is a tedious process, especially when it's a collaborative one. Not assuming good faith just makes it harder. Airplaneman (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Airplaneman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Nonsky (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Shaj MohanEdit

Hello, Airplaneman,

I have a question about this article deletion. You deleted on G5 grounds that it was the creation of a blocked or banned editor. But while WWorringer was blocked today for sock puppetry, he/she isn't a previously blocked editor and was not subject to a block when the article was created. Additionally, other editors have worked on this article although WWorringer was the primary editor. According to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5, I believe that if other editors have worked on the article, it shouldn't be deleted on G5 grounds.

I wouldn't mind if it was subject to an AfD discussion as a different editor did cite other speedy deletion grounds but I would like to restore it if that is okay with you and then have editors consider whether it should stay or be deleted via an AfD. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Thank you for pointing this out. I had determined that, under G5, other editors hadn't contributed anything substantial. However, you are correct that WWorringer was not previously blocked, as I had thought when I made the deletion. Looking at the SPI again, I now understand that I misread the situation. I'll undelete the page. I also wouldn't mind if the page went to AfD. I do not think the other CSD reasons are clear-cut enough for me to feel comfortable speedily deleting the page. Thanks again for bringing this up. Airplaneman (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Harshil169: I just wanted to let you know that I've fulfilled your protection request, but I've declined your deletion request. If you think the page should be deleted, it's best to file an AfD. Airplaneman (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Airplaneman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.LemonCroissant (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a slight issue please help me :(

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


The reversion of the edits on 2017 was an accident, sorry. I only meant to revert the edit immediately prior to my own, which looks like vandalism. Sorry! TheAwesomeHwyh 03:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@TheAwesomeHwyh: I don't think your edit was an accident. You removed vandalism. Your reversion, however, did not address two previous pending edits made by another IP which removed two names without reason. That's why I reverted further, which probably sent you a notification saying you were reverted. Airplaneman (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Airplaneman: The revert itself wasn't an accident, but the fact that I reverted the edits before that one was. Sorry if my wording was unclear. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@TheAwesomeHwyh: No worries! Looks like everything's in order now. Airplaneman (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Mina ChangEdit

There is a lot of incorrect information on her page. She has made false claims about her education, false claims about speaking at the UN and at DNC and RNC conventions. The information on her page doesn’t treat this seriously. It’s also reported in more than NBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:4887:100:34E9:2B0A:3EA2:C5E1 (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason I ended up protecting the page was not because I considered any information false or not. Rather, changes being made were not backed by reliable sources, which is a problem for biographies of living persons. Talk:Mina Chang has some beginning seeds of discussion which get at this issue, and I encourage you to present reliable sources to add to the page there. Airplaneman (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Airplaneman".