User talk:Mjroots/Archive/Aviation

Reeve Aleutian Airways

If you can find a couple of photos (or maybe just one!) I will give it a 'start' tag. Good work BTW. Perhaps have a look in commons at the aircraft types used to find one in the livery. If you know the domestic destinations you could put them in as red links. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nice photo, its cheating a little bit but hey, who's worried! Now 'start' class. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• No worries, an enormous improvement to the article in a short space of time, I see Dutch Harbor on the list, I like to watch 'Deadly Catch' on the TV, rather them than me! Nimbus227 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• You have been busy! Just an observation about your references. The usual way to reference a book is to put the details in a bibliography section and then use the authors surname, book year and page number for the ref. Have a look at Lockheed XF-104 to see how it works. Does not bother me but some of the more experienced editors at WP:AIR will pick it up and it does actually save some typing. You can cut and paste from other articles and put your details in to make life easier. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your hook. I have a better Reeve Aleutian Airways 727 photo. It's among many boxes so it will be difficult to find. However, it's better than the one in the article. It will probably take months to find. Archtransit (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Another reassessment for Reeve Aleutian Airways

Mj, I made a few notes for you in the Wiki review you requested. Excellent history aritcle. I enjoyed reading it. Glad to assist you, best regards, Lance .... LanceBarber (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mj, I add a few links behind the Boreas Corp name on the RAA talk page... they seem to still be in existance, but their significance in the industry to have brackets put around their name so someone can create an article I still do not have a feel for.,,, what are your thoughts. Lance...24.8.72.225 (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC) oooops, 'puter must have dropped my connections...LanceBarber (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Br 730

Well spotted - it first flew in 1938.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Coastal Airlines

Hi I have a request, could you start an article on Alaska Coastal Airlines -you did a neat job on the other! Regards The Bald One ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work!! I added some categories. I thought I asked somebody else earlier lol! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BA038

What section?

Why delete that section, I was just finding more refs for the RR assist, was stated on BBC NEWS24 not 10 mins ago! This is breaking news and sometimes it takes a little whilee for websites to updateMjroots (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What section? -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. I reverted an edit at the same time as you added the Investigation section, and both edits conflicted together or something, and it looks like I reverted you. I didn't, it was the anon before you. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think you've mistaken me for someone else. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

News 24

That may have been the case (I'm afraid I wasn't able to watch their broadcast), but I wouldn't necessarily take what's said live on air on News 24 as a reliable source--it could have been a journalist getting muddled (thinking AAIB and DoT are separate). Do you have a second source? --RFBailey (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: METAR

Hi Mjroots, Can you translate what that METAR classification means? I've got two university degrees, but when I looked at it all I saw was a string of semi-random letters, so I doubt that it's going to mean anything to most people. The source for the METAR was an internet forum which the relevant Wikipedia policy says should not be considered a reliable source. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you put the translation in the article and include the raw METAR in the reference? - the METAR isn't very meaningful for people like me who don't know how to read it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"hull loss"

Hi. Thanks for your edit to British Airways Flight 38. Your edit summary states: (Clarify hull loss with wikilink leading to page that describes hull loss). Unfortunately the link you added — which was a redirect to an article only tangentially related — did not describe what this is at all. Next time please check first. I've clarified it such that the sentence now explains it, and it even ended up shorter and clearer than it was before. — Timwi (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nautical Miles - Miles

Thanks for the comment, being involved in aviation I am aware of the difference, but we do not know which one the AAIB used (remember it was a press release to the general public). The BBC quote 2 miles (3.2km) which makes it real miles. Of course the BBC could be wrong as well. I take your point and will not change it again as once all the IP players have gone home the entry in 777 will probably be reduced to a summary as long as the Flight 38 article does not get AfD for not being notable! MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

AAIB

[1] G-VIIA 26 June 2003 near Reigate Access door detached, cabin windows damaged, minor damage to fuselage and fin. They are a few other reports about the 777 including injuries from turbulence and a first office being sick! I dont think any of these are really notable so in my opinion only the previous 2001 fire is really notable before the recent accident. So unless we count all these minor incidents we should perhaps stick to it being the second incident or accident. 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

BA038

Sorry about that I was just trying to delete the entry that was added so it could be added properly with its own source and not in the middle of another quote. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

BA038

Article in Flight International 18-24 March 2008 - 'Co-pilot may have impeded throttle on American 777' - The 777 cockpit layout means the first officer might have unintentionally obstructed the left-hand throttle lever while activating the speed-brake. Not official information but Flight would not print rubbish. - wont argue if you want to put it back until an official report is released. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Interim report released - probably icing - 3 safety recommendations made which might stir things up both for the aircraft type and for the fuel temperature certification criteria ;-) - British_Airways_Flight_38#Interim_Report.2C_4_September_2008 -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan aviation

I found you lead images for Robert Campbell Reeve and Reeve Aleutian Airways. The first may be public domain but I added a rationale to be on the safe side. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just received your question about the Grumman Goose picture I posted. Unfortunately, NONE of the photos I have of it show the registration number, so I cannot help you. My wife and I have flown in it many times, or a sister ship of PenAir, and have some more pictures at our website if you are interested. Thanks for your reply Here is one of me http://www.otgadventures.com/images/Man%20and%20Machine.jpg and here is the page with the goose pix http://www.otgadventures.com/alaska.htm

many regards, pabobfin Pabobfin (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Air Yacht

Assessment was in error - I copied the tag from a recent article which had in the meantime been assessed, & I didn't pick it up. Sorry. GrahamBould (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Biggen Hill Airport

Appreciate the feedback but the location of crash was a locality and in fact both sources agreed to the location and area, perhaps not the street but this is unneccessary and information was correctly garnished from WP:CITE and WP:PROVEIT. Regards PheonixRMB (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense Taken Least Someone Noticed and I now have a talk page Hurrah :) PheonixRMB (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2008 Farnborough plane crash

An editor has nominated 2008 Farnborough plane crash, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Farnborough plane crash and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Farnbrough crash

Yeah, I was about to do that but was beaten to the punch. I found the "it crashed into a house, so it's notable" argument rather unconvincing: a plane has to crash into something, SE England has quite a lot of houses, and unless one of those houses happened to be Windsor Castle, that doesn't seem especially notable, though I suppose having "notable" people on board swayed people too. Anyway, best, Biruitorul (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gazette (BOAC Flight 712)

Sorry, I missed out the param saying that the page is from a supplementary gazette (the urls are structured differently). Should be OK now. Davis's MBE will have been gazetted too - I was lsightly surprised that it wasn't in the same Gazette, but I don't think I've missed it, but I seem to be failing to turn it up on the search at the moment - did he have a middle name at all? David Underdown (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

False positive I'm afraid. The bloke at Heathrow was called Fennell, he was just on the same page as Davises and Johns. David Underdown (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

VS LHR Accident

Hm, well, I just thought that eleven years after the fact it doesn't really represent an important part of Heathrow's history in any way in which it might have had a long-term effect on the airport. It's already contained on the Virgin Atlantic page, and I would argue has much more relevance on there. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually try to rule using WP:AIRPORT's guidelines (the accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground and/or the accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport and/or the accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry). Now the only one it sort of fits into is the second category, though there wasn't a hull loss. I don't think the gap between the two incidents is really a reason for it to be included. Especially because this one doesn't seem as relevant as the ones surrounding it. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

BOAC Flight 712

Thanks for the note, didnt feel strongly enough to delete the names but it is likely to be challenged as WP:NOTMEMORIAL at some point in the future! MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sudan 109 changes

Hi, I see that you've reverted a couple of changes I made on the above article and stated MoS as your reasoning. If your revision is as per the MoS may I suggest we forget it in this instance because it looks horrendous chopping and changing between confusing date formats. RaseaC (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad, just noticed changes were down to another editor, not you. RaseaC (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots,

Thanks for the cite template work. It's really a better way to do things. Please be careful though, when converting, not to lose content in the old form. I've restored some author names that got dropped, so we give credit where due. Cheers, LeadSongDog (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Varig Flight 254

Hi Mjroots,

The references from the Varig Flight 254 article look to be appropriate on a first glance. I will take a better look when I have some time. One of them did seem to be a dead link, however. I'll double check that one too when I get back to it. Muito obrigado! (Thanks!) babbage (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem just the person to improve this article. I did my best with it a while back but don't speak/read Portuguese. See talk page of the article for removed text which may be referenced by a Portuguese source. Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I might be the person, just today I decided to make a profound change in how I am leading my life in some domains. In relation to Wikipedia, I've been spending (enjoying) 4, 5 daily hours writing and editing articles. What was supposed to be a hobby became an adiction. This has to stop. I will still write and edit but I need to reduce drastically the amount of work and work and sleep in real life to provide my subsistance. I have established as a goal the revision of articles of the airports of the 12 airport that will hold venues on the 2014 Fifa Cup. Most of them are incomplete or outdated and this is a needy service to the world community that will come to Brazil for the games. I had also an older project: writing articles about defunct Brazilian airlines, and hopefully also some about the ones still flying. This is also a needed project. The Varig article, for instance, particularly its history between 2004 and 2008 is a mess and mostly wrong. This testament is to say that I truly appreciate your suggestion but RG 254 will be left for later, after the compeltion of those project. And they will take time because Wikipedia cannot be a priority in my life - it does not fill my fridge! I did however note down the article so that eventually I look into it. My very best regards. (Brunoptsem (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

TWA Flight 840 (1969)

You provided a reference for this article to a geocities page (http://www.geocities.com/~aeromoe/fleets/tw.html). This is hardly a proper source of citation for Wikipedia as it is not a peer-reviewed document. Please see WP:CITE for proper citations. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

VR-HEU

Since this flight doesn't seem to have any flight number associated with it(and please don't ask me why cause I don't have the answer), and I must admit I have tried very hard to locate one to little avail, I am just following the convention. Think about it, in these circumtances, which one is clumsier? Or more precise? 1) Airline name + Aircraft registration (unique); or 2) Airline name + crash site + Type of incident + year + whatever else + whatever else + whatever else ...?

There is no so-called "correct rule" to adhere to in these circumstances. But if you do reckon 2) to be more appropriate and acceptable to everyone else on Wiki, I strongly suggest you make a guideline proposal to change the titles of all other flights that doesn't have a flight number.

A thought came in just a moment ago, what happens if 2 flights of the same airline, same aircraft type, same crash site, same type of incident, happened in the same year? Your title would be exceptionally long-winded before you encounter the one true unique bit at the end, wouldn't it? BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(Back from dinner) Thanks for the opportunity of reply and I do appreciate the new angle in the discussion. I must admit I hadn't thought of that before. People googling I mean.

Just for your info, a moment ago, I tried googling with: 1) 1954 Hainan Shootdown; 2) 1954 cathay hainan; 3) 1954 cathay skymaster; 4) 1954 cathay skymaster; 5) 1954 cathay c-54; 6) 1954 cathay dc-4; 7) cathay hainan; 8) skymaster hainan; 9) cathay shootdown; and here are the results:

1) Current title appears 2nd on the list; 2) Current title appears 1st on the list; 3) Current title appears 1st on the list; 4) Current title appears 1st on the list; 5) Current title appears 1st on the list; 6) Current title appears 1st on the list; 7)12ve on list; 8)1st on list; 9) 2nd on list;

I also googled with: 1) concorde crash; 2) boac comet crash; 3) china airlines 747 disintegration; Here are the results: 1) Air France Flight 4590 appears 1st on the list; 2) BOAC Flight 781 appears 1st on the list; 3) China Airlines Flight 611 appears 3rd on the list.

I think with today's technology in search engines and key words (like cathay, 1954, hainan, skymaster, etc etc) already in the article itself, having the current title may not, and I stress may not, present people searching (You and me are users too) with too big an obstacle afterall. What do you reck?BringItOn TheAteam (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Limoges incident

Look farther up on the talk page. Even that incident was not deemed notable enough to include, with 26 injuries and now pending lawsuits, so 10 very minor injuries are not a reason to include this one. Seriously, you are beginning to look silly in your desperation to include this incident come what may. 217.28.34.132 (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Limoges incident was a loss of cabin pressure. It was reported with hysterical headlines at the time (the aircraft plummeted, passengers were screaming, they thought they were going to die, I'll never fly with Ryanair again etc) and there was a long and drawn out debate about it's notability but common sense prevailed in the end.

This latest incident is significant for the reasons we have both pointed out on the talk page. Please do the Wiki a favour and put this Ciampino incident back in to the article. If you don't then someone will waste their time trying to write it up again from scratch and get attacked for Fact or POV failures. 84.9.32.138 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No one should write it up from scratch because there is now a note there not to. As I said on the TP, if the argument is that it's the most serious incident because 10 people were hospitalised, that is not the case because 26 were hospitalised at Limoges. This incident looks spectacular, but it is not particularly serious, except for the effect on ops at CIA, which is why it is correctly included on the CIA article. If people want to ignore notes and policy that is up to them, but it doesn't show Wikipedia in a good light. Why the rush to include this? Wikipedia is not a news source. Let's wait for the dust to settle, and if it proves to be notable I will happily reinsert it myself. BTW, canvassing others to avoid breaching the 3RR rule is a breach in itself. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Harry the Dog WOOF 21:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Munich air disaster

The info you added basically reiterated what was said in the Investigation section. Therefore, I moved the reference you added (thanks for that, btw) to the Investigation section. I will be continuing to add info to the article this week, so don't worry. – PeeJay 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. The bit about the square of the speed should be re-added, but it definitely doesn't need a whole new section. – PeeJay 21:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, but like I said, I didn't remove the ref, I moved it to the Investigation section. – PeeJay 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Etihad

Hi .....Thanks for the reminder.
I am keeping off the Etihad Article for a few days. You see this user (User:GS350) ,he probably thinks that he owns the Etihad Article. He is not ready to listen.I told him that if his info in right then atleast he should show the links,but he simply just edits without any sources. (Druid.raul (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi!! Should i revert the WRONG INFO edit made by (User:GS350) or wait for the topic to be discussed at WT:AVIATION? Thanks (Druid.raul (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Ok thanks for the advice. i hope things get sorted out fast. (Druid.raul (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi!! The Etihad Article is becoming a Mess. Different users are coming and just adding their info which they dream in their dreams. I am thinking of waiting for a week or more and then taking action myself. you see Etihad is one of the 8 airlines i really like to edit and hate to see wrong info in it. These users - (User:Etihadairways) and (User:GS350) are ruining the article. (User:GS350) thinks he/she owns the Etihad article and acts like he/she is the guardian.
Thanks (Druid.raul (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

What about the fleet? its wrong. this GS350 fellow doesn't even bother to show the link which says Etihad has 11 firm orders for Boeing 777-300ERs and 4 A320s. I looked at the Etihad website (here is the link - http://www.etihadairways.com/sites/Etihad/global/en/aboutetihad/mediacenter/newslisting/newsdetails/Pages/Etihadplacesorderforupto205aircraft.aspx?fromNewsListing=false) and the Official Boeing and Airbus orders and deliveries page, but still this GS350 is blind. he is just trying to make the airline look bigger and nothing else.

Here is the Boeing orders and deliveries webpage (http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardreport.cfm?cboCurrentModel=777&optReportType=AllModels&cboAllModel=777&ViewReportF=View+Report)

You can find the orders and deliveries of all Boeing aircraft by replacing the 777 in the link with 707 / 717 / 727 / 737 / 747/ 757 / 767 / 787.

Here is the Airbus orders and deliveries link (http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/orders_and_deliveries/). You can download the Excel document by clicking the link at the bottom or the page. This document shows the list of orders and deliveries of every Airbus aircraft ever produced right from the Airbus A300.

Thanks (Druid.raul (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Air France Flight 447

Hi, firstly, I must say I find the way you organise your talk page odd but hopefully this is the right section. Where is the image to which you refer in this comment? Thanks. Adambro (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1996 Wadden Sea Dakota accident

You may want this, this, and this article. This one just might help. (Please feel free to refactor talk, header as desired). LeadSongDog come howl 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you've made considerable headway on this at your sandbox. Care for some help?LeadSongDog come howl 01:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAM Flight 8095‎

Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAM Flight 8095‎ as updated, it's not just a turbulence event.LeadSongDog come howl 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Caspian Airlines Flight 7908

I fixed the Caspain mispelling on the Caspian Airlines Flight 7908 article and then went looking for others. I ended up in an edit conflict with you with both of us fixing exactly the same thing. That took a moment to figure out in the edit conflict screen. :)Naraht (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The language is Farsi. The only other language with a similar script is arabic and the official Iranian news agency doesn't publish in Arabic.Naraht (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Continental Airlines Flight 128

Hi Mjroots, just a quick question, have you requested for a CO 767-200ER picture? I could not find the correct place, or have you asked any photographers? I have asked one from airliners.net and I am now waiting for a reply. Please reply via my discussion, regards, Zaps93 (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

British European Airlines Flight 142 !!

Well spotted it was my silly mistake! MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

1965 VP incident at GIG

Mjroots. I've been greatly increasing the amount of information on the GIG article. There are quite a few more accidents/incidents not listed. Should I listed them all, the article would be too long. I therefore followed the criteria of listing only accidents with victims and incidents such as hijacks. Also, for instance, I did not list training flights. Therefore, I do not think the incident you added should be listed. Should a person be interested, the link in external links should provide a way in to the information. In the future, I will update the VP page and there a more detailed list can be made. BRGDS. (Brunoptsem (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

Hi, the accident in question resulted in a hull loss, which means that it is worthy of a mention at least under airline, aircraft and airport. Being a training flight it is probably not worthy of a separate article. See List of accidents and incidents involving the Vickers Viscount for all hull losses plus a few hijackings thrown in. Best, Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC) BTW, if the section gets too long, it can always be split off into a new article. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your suggestions. I will follow your suggestion and leave in the main GIG article accidents and incidents from 1977 on. Why this year? Because this year the new passenger terminal opened, so it is the start of a new phase in the life of the airport. I will however start a new article listing all the major accidents (involving victims), from 1952 on (the year civil operations at GIG started) including those such as yours. There will be a "main article" link so the information will not be lost. BRGDS, (Brunoptsem (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

Alitalia incidents and accidents

Hi, I reverted your edit on the Alitalia page about incidents and accidents as the accident you added was for the old Alitalia and not the new Alitalia, please go and add the accident to Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane as it is the old Alitalia. Zaps93 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 in aviation

The flags are contrary to MoS - most of these entries are completley none-notable anyway. Nigel Ish (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The article contains awful spelling and grammar, as well as being poorly written in general. --Starbucks95905 (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Luftwaffe bomber crash near Kingsdown, Kent in November 1940

Here's a copy of the deleted article at User:Mjroots/Luftwaffe bomber crash near Kingsdown, Kent in November 1940. I see that some have suggested a merger with other articles such as Kingsdown, Kent, Kampfgeschwader_4 and Deal, Kent. So that would be a good idea probably to merge some of its content to any of the three articles particularly the Kampfgesscgwader 4 one. JForget 12:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be User:Kbaughan1 --JForget 12:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh - you asked, "Where did you get the names from? Was it David Collyer's book or the one published by the Kent Aviation Historical Society, or both?" The names of the casualties come directly from the the gravestones (see the accompanying photo in my proto-article on the cemetery they're interred in, and also on the Commonwealth War Graves website cemetery search for Deal. Leutnant Mollenhauer's name came directly from David Collyer's BookKbaughan1 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Iranian AWAC

There are more than one Il-76s in service with Iran but yes, I know the one which crashed was an AWAC. There were 2 Iraqi AWACs flown over to Iran (both Il-76), but only one of them had recently become operational and now it's crashed. I don't know about IRIAF plans for the other one. Take into account though that as for planes such as the F-4, F-5 and F-14, the Iranians have many of them in reserve, which cannot be kept operational due to the American embargoe, due to lack of spare parts they can't keep them all operational but crashed planes can be replaced. BTW, none of these numbers here are really definite, they are all estimates, no-one really knows how many planes Iran has managed to make operational.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines

Hi! I am about the change the title for the accident you mentioned to Turkish Airlines Flight 452 as I found a hint. Thanks for your advise. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian Airlines Fleet

Hi Mjroots, long time no speak. I am currently in a EW with an IP on the Saudi Arabian Airlines Fleet section as he keeps changing the format to his likings. I have asked him to stop but he just simply said 'it looks better'. I told him it needs to be dicussed and agreed apon before it is used and he disagrees and keeps reverting. I was wondering if it is possible for you to lock the page until a solution is agreed/decided apon? Best Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Etihad

I showed you all the proof about the Etihad Fleet. Ok i will go away, but atleast look at my proofs before saying anything. (203.76.181.12 (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)) (Druid.raul)

KG 26

Certainly not 115s. Only two gruppen took part. I Gruppe had 111s and the III Gruppe had Ju 88s. It would be difficult to determine which one. Was the Carrier Avenger present? Dapi89 (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The source seems very uncertain that the aircraft were 115s. It is most likely they mistook the machines. I can only assume they identified the torpedo as floats. In that case, it cannot have been He 115s. The sources I have identify Gruppe I (that sank your ship) were equipped with 111s - it was they that were committed on 13 September. The other two Gruppen had He 111s and Ju 88s. I can say for sure that He 115s would not have operated against that convoy. Dapi89 (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

re MA60

Bold it is, but with good reason. The MA60 doesn't warrant a separate article unless you include the Y-7 in all its variants, thus I just moved relevant stuff to the An-24 article until such time as I or someone else creates a Xian Y-7 article. My opinion, i know, but the MA60 article was little more than a stub as it was. Some people don't like the way I do things, but when all is said and done things can be put back if necessary.Petebutt (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate crash of an airliner

I've replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Deliberate crash of an airliner. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 331

Sorry for screwing the image. I went back to repair it but you are very quick  :) --Lester 08:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For the aircraft involved, see the Aviation Safety Network article. There's a slightly better AA 737 image at the Wikimedia Commons. Cheers, Lester 08:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you got the image. Great. Maybe like Air France Flight 447, someone will eventually find an image of the actual aircraft. --Lester 08:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Newark Liberty International Airport

I claimed [the UA incident] was not relevant, not notable. I very much doubt this incident will be a significant one in Newark Airport's history. I can see why it would be included in the airline's article, but as far as I'm concerned airport incidents should involve those that do not have a significant impact on the airport not that merely happen at that airport. This only caused the temporary shutdown of a runway but in no other way affected it. I won't keep removing it because it seems some News-mania is occurring now but I am considering challenging its relevance in the article. Hope you understand my reasoning. NcSchu_(Talk) 04:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ethiopian Airline

Yes, Lebanese news networks are reporting this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.61.243 (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Colgan Air Flight 3407

Sorry for the mistake. I will be more careful next time and not delete references that are repeated later. Judith Merrick (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cubana de Aviación Flight 310

Tuppence ha'penn'orth set down. Thanks for the alert! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubana de Aviación Flight 310.
Message added 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please read my comment; I'm trying to reach consensus without having to pull out the blunt cudgel of asking the closing admin to ignore majority opinion, and I would like you to either change your vote, or provide an argument supported by WP policies and guidelines that would change my vote. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Bangladesh Biman Airlines

Sure, I am not editing the article any more. However, do check the note I'm posting at ANB. Regards. --Ragib (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually gave you my assurance that I am not going to revert until the issue is resolved in ANB. So, edit protecting the page is not necessary. Also, would you care to post a note about your indefinite edit protection at the FAR page? Because of your infinite edit protection, the FAR fixes cannot be made at all indefinitely. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Notability

You may be interested in this discussion to accept the suggested guideline at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability and the case of Cubana 310 has been brought up. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

British Eagle Britannia and Viscount

The Bristol Britannia in the image at Manchester Airport is G-AOVM and the Vickers Viscount is G-AMOC. Hope that helps! RuthAS (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Trigana Air Service Flight 168

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trigana Air Service Flight 168, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trigana Air Service Flight 168. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Military operators of aircraft

Well, I that thought that an IP editor, 75.80.151.51 was a vandal earlier on in the day, but in the end I worked out that he may have been referring to former operators, not current ones. My recent edit to the An-12 article that you likely based your response from, I didn't threaten an edit war, or at least not on purpose, but I did state that I wanted a reference on the possible Mongolian service. I hope this clears things up.

"Currently, the only military still using the Spitfire is the Royal Air Force (Battle of Britain Memorial Flight). I'm sure you'd agree that the list of operators shouldn't be reduced to just the RAF!" Lol No Mate! Nohomers48 (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand completely. Nohomers48 (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Aviation in 2010: Plane crash in Peru

I think you should add info about the plane crash in Peru, near the Nazca Lines, where 4 peruvians and 3 chileans died. Please check the news in ABC and CNN. --JorgeRodriguez (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

GOL flight 1907

Please see my reply on the talk page. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Review of BOAC Flight 712

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Talk:BOAC Flight 712/GA1.
Message added 22:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at MWOAP's talk page.
Message added 10:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 10:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re British Airways 146 incident

Hello, i have reverted your reversion on the 146 incident as the pilot was blown out of the aicraft, the pressure was greater inside the aircraft than the outside as the fuselage is pressurised at altitude and the air becomes thinner the higher up you go. There was no suction as the aircraft would have to be in a vacuum for such a thing to happen, aeroplanes operate in the atmosphere otherwise without the air they would not be able to fly and the engines would not run.

Ps i am an aircraft engineer!

Zippyandgeorge (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply it is duly noted!

Regards

Zippyandgeorge (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to Polish air crash

Please could there be a review of the AFD. It is rare for me to disagree with decisons in admin land, but take a look at User:Ianmacm/Sandbox1. 106 citations for one death, is this really necessary?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Is version in line with an AfD decision (made over 65kb of discussion two days ago) a wrong version? Simple question, simple answer please.--Avala (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You might be an optimist but hoping that there will be any will for some discussion after the draining AfD and especially with a user that openly ignores warnings because "others tried to warn him before" and says that the community "gets things wrong a lot" and continues to revert them is a bit too optimist. Plus where does this end? How do you imagine this ends? If we got a result in an official process but one user thinks that this content is "shite", "silliness", "ignorable" and "rote platitudes" and goes on with reverts. We can discuss but it will lead nowhere, we will say yes, he will say no a few dozen times and then what? Even the deletion review makes little sense, he will ignore that too. And this experience that there is no will to protect even the AfD decisions from two days ago tells me that we will not have any better results with protecting deletion review results (not to mention how unfair and undemocratic it is to start a review 2 days after the AfD as I can't see what new thing will be brought to the community).

As for the article specific issue you raised, on my part I tried to overcome this by placing it within the collapsible template.--Avala (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Flight 771

Good working with you today! I think we (and the other contributors) did a pretty darn good job on this one... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it'll be interesting to know if it was an out-of-fuel/faulty indicator combination or something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest, is there any mileage in (once the sex is determined) this article being nominated at DYK for a "sole survivor" style hook? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I had a quick look for that rule, couldn't see it, but thanks for clarifying it for me. And yes, I agree that an ITN is much more satisfying than a DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind welcome! Glad I could help. :) Leime (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Ruben van Ashout

I have nominated Ruben van Ashout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. SQB (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Something seems to have gone wrong with the XFD script. I'll add it manually to the discussion page. SQB (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Arabic vs. English

Actually I changed an English link to another English one that links to all of the press releases. The Arabic one is one that I added just to list all of the content only in Arabic (the whole "Obituary" section, listing all of the crew member names, right now is only in Arabic). WhisperToMe (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• The page you reverted from had all of the English content that is also seen in the news page - the only difference is that some of the content in the second link is also in Arabic. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Finns

According to Helsingin Sanomat (Finland's largest newspaper) there was no Finn on board.

South African English

In regards to the South African English thing on the Afriqiyah talk page, I posted there.

Long story short: Because the flight departed Johannesburg in South Africa, and because Libya and the Netherlands aren't English speaking (while people may know English in those countries, those countries are not tied to a national variety), ENGVAR means that the article should be written in formal South African English. However from my understanding South African English corresponds heavily with British English, so under most circumstances the writing style should be similar. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pamir Airways Flight 112

Thanks for fixing my reference error! 220.101.28.25 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

By the way, reports of the wreckage being found were "exaggerated". As of ≈17:00 May 19 UTC, still not located, according to BBC. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Air India Express accident

Hi, mjroots, this is regarding the Mangalore crash - I have updated my comments regarding the survivors and Tail design of the aircraft. I am new to editing. so see the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.224.32 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to convey my appreciation on your efforts on this particular article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.224.32 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand whats to discuss how to list nationalities, its an established norm at wiki to list everything under nation state name, see all tables of crash articles involving nationalitiy list. Why are 5 people going around changing everythinng at wiki according to their own whims.inspector 11:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspector123 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at 220.101.28.25's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Mjroots, thanks for the message. Today I added a short paragraph to the investigation subheading under the above article. The information was relevant because it revealed relationships between the head of the Russian investigation (Prime Minister Putin) and the controlling owner of the Aviakor plant that updated the Polish presidential Tu-154's avionics (Oleg Deripaska). Putin and Deripaska are old skiing buddies and Deripaska supported Putin's rise to power, then married into the Yeltsin family to take advantage of its pardon by Putin. It is a clear conflict of interest for Putin to be named head of the investigation because his relationship to Deripaska (a Forbes list oligarch who has given to Putin's campaigns) will tempt Putin toward findings that exonerate Aviakor from liability. It casts a cloud over the reliability of Putin as head of the investigation, and the investigation itself. Now I didn't put all that in there, but did state the facts showing same. My sources were good, solid mainstream, high quality media sources. However, those unfamiliar with legal issues in investigations deleted the small paragraph and the sources.

No encyclopedia worth a dung hill includes a section about a momentous, historic investigation and then fails to mention a conflict of interest inherent in the high-profile head of the investigation. Not only that, but not one word about Putin's lack of aviation experience. And yet, he's head of the commission investigating a plane crash. Omission of facts about a conflict of interest in the investigation (and I provided reliable sources) is to use wikipedia as a tool favoring a nation-state's promotional view of itself.

Sources that are predominantly promotional of some regime or company are questionable sources under wikipedia policy. That means that nearly the entire article is questionable. This is true because the entire principal article "2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash" is replete with citations to Russian media outlets. The Russian media with few exceptions are beholden to the Putin regime. Anyone with a passing awareness of recent Russian history knows this. This is also verifiable.

The investigation has problems and I could go into it further, but I just need to know from you if this is going to be wasting my time.MWoodson (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mjroots, thanks much for your informative response on the above at my talk page. It seems that existing sources for the above are heavy with media whose state-affiliation makes them suspect. Good journalism does not merely report what governments do in press releases, it finds facts that help complete the reality mosaic just a little bit more.

If the Russian state-coerced or influenced media are cited for the purposes of discussing them, not to support a fact, wikipedia rules seem to approve of such a use of questionable sources.

Thanks again for the time frame angle you brought to my awareness.MWoodson (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Thanks, you beat me to it. --John (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

I was just wondering if you think I was out of line here in reverting said users edits. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

IX 812

That's understandable. I was just under the impression that the Air India article would list all accidents including those involving subsidiaries as it makes it easier to get a more complete picture. Vedant (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Berlin Air Services DC-3 crash

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

G'day, me again :-) I've continued the conversation at my talk page. YSSYguy (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of spaceflight

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Talk:Timeline of spaceflight.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--GW… 09:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

List of DC-3 prangs

¡Ay Caramba! That's a big can o' worms you are opening there - have you seen how many 1940s and 1950s DC-3 accidents there are listed in the appendix to Destination Disaster? I have made some changes to the lead; I have also made some changes to the year 2000 entries, which I think could be extrapolated to the rest of them. General observations: IMO there is no need to go into more detail than "C-47A", etc. the suffixes merely denote production batches; there are a number of typos; the images could perhaps do with some moving about; The C-49 designation is IMO just confusing & you should just call it a DC-3; give some thought to explaining in the text the more-obscure planes such as the AMI DC-3 and the DC-3-65/AR and the Super R4D.

Those other lists should keep you occupied for the rest of your life ;-) YSSYguy (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done! I hope you don't mind, I've started on the 1990s list. The crash of VH-EDC is well-known in this part of the world. It was the first crash at Sydney Airport since 1980 and involved students from one of the top private schools in Sydney. There were some amusing consequences as well; one of the pilots got in strife with the Family Court as he wasn't paying his ex-wife maintenance, claiming that he was unemployed - and there he was splashed all over the media, working as a pilot. YSSYguy (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Destination Disaster, about the 1974 THY Paris crash, is a good place to at least get dates of accidents and the names of the operators. I used to have a copy but about 15 years ago I lent it to a guy whose sister-in-law died in the crash and that's the last I saw of it (also the last time I lent a book).

Some for the future:

• RAAF Dakota A65-61 (like all military transports operating in Australia in WW2 it also had a VH- radio callsign, but that was not its registration) crashed on 18 or 19 September 1945 in Irian Jaya, was not found for 30-odd years.
• http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1127/features/feature01.htm
• http://www.adf-serials.com/2a65.shtml
• http://www.ozatwar.com/ozcrashes/qld150.htm
• http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4715/topstories/story01.htm

10 November 1942, USAAF The Flying Dutchman

• http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=15377

RNEIAF C-47 crashed 7 September 1944, not found until 1989 (still plenty of 'planes that crashed in Australia & PNG that have never been found).

• http://www.ozatwar.com/ozcrashes/qld157.htm

19 December 1943, USAAF 43-30742, the 2nd worst air crash in Australia to this day.

• http://www.ozatwar.com/ozcrashes/qld56.htm Click the 10 Worst Air crashes on this page, most of them are C-47/DC-3 crashes.

YSSYguy (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

G'day again, just a quick note to say there's no need to preserve the edit history for the 1980s list; it's not as if I actually added to it. YSSYguy (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

G'day again, User:Belfast 19 (who should be blocked as he is a sock of User:Ryan kirkpatrick but hasn't been yet for some reason) has beaten you to the punch and created lists for the 1980s and 1970s using one of the other existing lists as a starting point. YSSYguy (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, as you can see I have self-reverted. It might be a good idea to adjust the wording; if I can misunderstand it others will be able to as well. YSSYguy (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Air Kenya DC3 Mara crash

Hi there Mjroots you excellent editor well done with this one. I see that it just says "in the Mara" but not which strip, as does your source. Do you think that more detailed sources exist which might nail down which airstrip? It's not like the encyclopaedia will actually melt into a pile of cottage cheese without it, well not immediately anyway, but it would be a vaguely interesting addition - just like "crashed near Harlech" is a fraction more interesting (or more something) than "crashed in Wales". I know it might not be possible, but if there's somewhere else to look - or maybe I could assist by looking at other sources, if you point me in the right direction? - it would be nice. But. like I say, not one for having a nervous breakdown before 9pm tonight over. :) Cheers, DBaK (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Air India

Thanks for writing the page notice :) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Heli Holland crash

G'day and thanks - it doesn't show up on my Watchlist. I was expecting the removal to be the work of User:KzKrann (who incidentally has been a little bit naughty and created some User subpages to preserve some deleted and probably-soon-to-be-deleted air crash articles). I have been coming across Zbase4's name quite a bit on my watchlist recently; he seems to be following User:Ryan kirkpatrick around as well. "Photographers are notable"? - good grief. AfD it is then.

Is it me, or has has WP got worse recently as far as non-notable articles such as this, the Canadian Cessna 185 crash, the American Airlines passenger incident, the Emirates turbulence incident and the Tiltrotor-blowing-dust-over-airshow-spectators-"disaster" is concerned? YSSYguy (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I did a merge-redirect instead. YSSYguy (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft operated

Aircraft operated means that they were formerly operated. No need to change it to Aircraft formerly operated. Please take a look at British Airways. Hope you understand what I'm doing. Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 22:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

G-AEUH

Good point. I have just put it up for DYK, but don't mind if it's moved once that process is complete. Grant | Talk 03:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories and List of accidents and incidents involving the Vickers Viscount

You linked the article List of accidents and incidents involving the Vickers Viscount to every single yearly category page that had a Vickers incident. The category pages are for incidents that happened that year. For instance South African Airways Flight 406 is linked to this list Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1967. Note the words aviation accidents and incidents. The Vickers page isn't an article about one particular incident but a list of all accidents with that particular aircraft. Any articles written about Vickers incidents in 1967, should link to the category page. Look at the 1967 category page, are there category links from other types of aircraft? No. Look at list articles on the incidents involving Boeing 737,747, 727, 707, etc do they link to every single year category one of these aircraft crashed? No, and neither should the Vickers Viscount list article.William 15:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Plane crash

Would be very grateful if you could come and help out here. News agencies started reporting it a couple of minutes ago. Cheers, WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 836

I have nominated Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 836, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 836. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

2009 Manaus Aerotáxi crash

Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to get on top of it. Crum375 (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: AIRES accident

Can you give me 20 mins or so to edit this in peace? I've got plenty of sources via Pprune with which to improve the article. Did you not see the {{inuse}} I placed at the top of the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not. Look at the time stamps. --Mareklug ^talk 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm curious: Where did you get all these interwiki links? None of them points to an article. diff. --Mareklug ^talk 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW non-BLP discussion about name of woman who died: Talk:AIRES_Flight_8250#Naming the sole dead person WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Bandundu Filair Let L-410 crash

Sigh...apologies, and thanks for fixing it. C628 (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514

Wasn't much of an improvement, really. I just linked a few things. Sources look fine, although I did not make an effort to compare what the sources say with what the article says. If you have any particular pieces in mind that you think could benefit from an overview by a native speaker, feel free to let me know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 8, 2010; 17:13 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514 - nothing personal just not notable. I must admit it is a good article. i wish i could post them like that every time, but i usually have to use single sources which have big limitations.Petebutt (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

IX 812

IX 812 was an Air India express flight and not an Air India flight. Air India Express is a subsidiary of Air India. So this accident should article shouls remain only in the AIX article. If you believe that IX 812 incident should be added to AI article, then you should go ahead and add all IC incidents and accidents into the same article as IC in now a subsidiary of AI. Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing problems on Ngurah Rai International Airport

Thank you for your earlier intervention. I appreciate you apparently impartial and sober approach. Sadly 124x247x221x146 (talk · contribs) is still at it. He has since deleted the Terminals column from the Selaparang Airport article and again deleted Wings Air. Maybe he flew with them once and had a bad experience, but his behaviour is odd to say the least. He is still at it and really I think he is just a trouble maker and a belligerent vandal. I have addressed my opinions on this and the nature of the editing on his talk page, my own talk page and both the discussion pages. He has now had his way with the Ngurah Rai International Airport article and the vandalised table remains with riddled with misleading and factually incorrect details that he is apparently determined to have there. This despite accurate, up to date and properly sourced information being provided to it on now several occasions and also now sitting on the discussion page. He has failed to pull back and indeed has just continued to behave in a belligerent and inappropriate manner. I believe his actions are so far from good faith that they have disappeared over the curvature of the earth. I request that the table provided on the Ngurah Rai International Airport discussion page is uploaded and page protection instituted. Indeed I think it would be a good idea if this individual was blocked from editing Indonesian pages for a while and any that I have edited elsewhere on WP as his activities seems to be verging on stalking. I think he knows well his behaviour is inappropriate but has let things get away from himself. I find his behaviour disappointing, destructive and childish and I hope he manages to stop himself soon. Perhaps he needs some assistance to do that. If you do not have an administrator overview of those articles perhaps you can pass the matter onto someone who does. Thank you and I hope you can assist with this. Felix505 (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you are among the many users that wrote on 124x247x221x146 (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I hope you will consider the possibility of having this user blocked. He is engaged in a number of edit wars with other users on airport-related pages. I have placed a 'final warning' template on his talk page and pending your action. Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong ☺ 12:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:124x247x221x146 (talk) / blocked User:124.247.221.146 (talk) has expressed some opinions on the quality of my edits in various places including Talk:Selaparang Airport and Felix505 (talk). I have left a response on my talk) page. If you have a moment you might like to run your eye over it. I notice his edits have slowed down a bit, in volume per day at least. There is still the problem at Ngurah Rai International Airport article in that it has some really dreadfully inaccurate information in the destinations table due to the efforts of User:124x247x221x146 (talk). I would like to fix it but this now triumphant clown will no doubt return and delete it again. So this is how articles end up on WP, screw the facts and the integrity of content, the most belligerent wins the day and we end up with complete rubbish in an article. It is not a good outcome for either accuracy or article integrity. I have put the table deleted by User:124x247x221x146 on the discussion page and generated another table with links to most of the airlines concerned so that the sources could be checked as that user had deleted them earlier. The other source for the table information content was the airport operating authority. I have removed one of the previous external links for flight info from the article as it went to a 404 error page. The main airport page (still in external links) has arr/dep info on it.

• I disagree with the decision not to block this person, they are a menace. I am now unwilling to edit correct information into the pages concerned as this person will not doubt come and delete making it a pointless exercise. I have looked over his histories and it is clear he has a dubious past with what appears to be a 24/7 disputation and edit warring history and that his current user identity is masking a dubious past. I also assume his short history as User:124x247x221x146 (talk) /blocked User:124.247.221.146 (talk) gives indication that there are blocks on his previous user name/s. Again thank you for your input and assistance and my apologies for bothering you with this again today, perhaps this needs further review. Felix505 (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried a couple of edits on Ngurah Rai International Airport today as I hoped User:124x247x221x146 (talk) had managed to calm done. He reverted every edit I made. So I stopped editing again. I have left a response to him on Ngurah Rai International Airport page and I have left a couple of messages on User talk:MilborneOne (section-124x247x221x146) seeking his assistance in establishing an IP block on this individual. My reasons are detailed there as I do not wish to burden you with being a go-between. I am of course happy to talk with either of you about this but I thought it best to burden him with the heavy lifting as you seemed to be referring to him already. It is up to you as administrators of course but frankly I think this guy is a couple of biscuits short of a full pack and he is downright belligerent to boot. I cannot edit with him around. He just deletes. Sorry to be banging on your door again, perhaps you could run your eye over my talk page and Ngurah Rai International Airport and it's discussion page. Thanks. Felix505 (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the article from editing for the moment as users contine to edit war, hope this will encourage some discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, can you please have a look over my edit proposal on the Destinations table of the Ngurah Rai International Airport article and the addition of a weblink in the External sites section. I have painstakingly reviewed the content of the airline and destination content, found some more oversights and errors including a couple of my own and really I can see no reason why anyone would object to that content if it were uploaded now. I am certainly not infallible but it is a vast improvement on what I found there originally. The result of 124xxx's editing is still there and although he did return a couple of my edit details the bulk of them remain deleted and the table is really quite inaccurate and misleading. I have draw attention to a couple of entries that could benefit from your overview as to the appropriateness of them being in the table. I have also supplied a table with the airlines URL's and a full breakdown of the edits with the sources and reasons for changing the original table and the current version on the page edited by 124xxx. I hope you are able to find the time to have a look at it. I have left a copy of this message with MilborneOne as well. If either of you have great issue with the formatting I have used then please do not bother to consult with me on it as it will just delay the process of getting some accuracy into the table. If you really don't like it or have some issue with it then just go ahead and change it. It is after all (normally) a work in progress. Thanks. Felix505 (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wind Jet 243

Hi Mjroots, yes it looks that you mis-read the translation of google traslator:

• Translation: Around 200 people were stranded on Sicily for two days due to the ferry MV Palladio suffering a breakdown and being forced to remain at Agrigento while repairs were carried out.
• Facts: Around 200 people were stranded on Lampedusa (one of the small islands of Sicily) because there where no flights Palermo-Lampedusa and at the same time the over-night ferry MV Palladio in service on the route Porto Empedocle (near Agrigento, Sicily) to Lampedusa had suffered a breakdown (anchor not working) and was forced to remain in P.E. while repairs were carried out.

Now, A) 200 people stranded in Lampedusa are a tiny minority of the people affected by this accident when over 40 flights had to be diverted (85%) or cancelled. B) The breakdown of the ferry was only a coincidence that made things worse for those stranded on the small island C) I think you made a bit of confusion between Sicily, "Mainland" (Italy) and the Islands of Sicily. It will be my pleasure to help you with the article...btw, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243. Ciao!--Sal73x (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

About the 200 of Lampedusa, I would leave this bit out of the article because as them many other people were stranded in Rome, Milan and Venice and had no cover from the media. Being stuck in a tourist resort (even if an island) is better than being stuck in grey Milan ;-). Either of those people (who on Lamp. and who in Milan/Rome) reached Palermo 2 days later by plane. Why mention the first and ignore the seconds? I have added two reference (1 in english and 1 in italian) about flights diverted to TPS and CTA.--Sal73x (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, here are two more articles about "Flight 243", here1 and here2 that could be useful for reference. BTW, if you should need any help in the future to translate something (news or wikiarticles) from italian to english just give me a shout.--Sal73x (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Detailed aircraft histories

We, the contributors to the Aviation Project, would like to know your thoughts on this matter. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

De Havilland Comet

Hi Mj, thanks for your recent comment about nudging the article to a GA status, and no, I am actually using this article as a teaching device to surreptitiously "tutor" another editor in building his editing skills. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Hawker Siddeley Trident

Sorry,MJ, there must have been an edit conflict that erased your earlier edit. Now rectified, my apologies. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

Qantas Flight 32

The wide and varied opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32 just reiterate the necessity for forming some good guidliens for accident/incident articles and article sections. If our friend falls off the wiki-civility wagon again and is banned for good (a likely prospect), then perhaps we can make a concerted effort to craft some guidelines that will pass muster with the WP community this time. Jim Wales made it quite clear in his comments at WT:AVIATION that he defers to projects to know more about these things than he does. We could probably enlist his help if the "aviation porn" objections crop up again, from what ever source. - BilCat (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing where User:Thewinchester got his "guidelines" on accidents from! I hadn't seen that anywhere before, but obscure guidelines on WP are quite common now! - BilCat (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Took them from a combination of common sense, and a collection of my opinions formed from the basis for all other similar articles, as well as the countless deletion and notability debates on wikipedia over many years. As for WP:AIRCRASH, the article meets two of the six criterian for notability there, and will no doubt meet more of them as time, and the subsequent investigations progress. Further, a very similar debate occurred around the time of the Kerang rail accident, and the resolution went to keep. It was far more sensible to do so, and set a firm basis for building, other than recreation and problems down the track. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. There's not much to knock into shape at this point, simply because there's so little information, and freely available multimedia elements that could be added. Given a few more days and weeks, more and more information will come in to expand the article and it'll be fine. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The grounding will definitely change the situation, assuming it lasts for more than a few hours or so. As for "standard practice", it's not. I've seen article3 AFDed less than 30 seconds after their creation, and aviation accident articles in less than an hour on many occasions, several by one highly contentious user in particular. I'm quite certain he wouldn't accept your practices as standard! - BilCat (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors (which you did not do), and do not attack or frustrate other editors efforts either, which you and/or another editor did by:

• Marking a page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32) for deletion after 1 minute: theres plenty of opportunity do do this later once other editors have had time to actually write the content or place content in the talk pages. Marking a page for deletion deters other editors from contributing to the article (and other articles) on wikipedia regardless of whether RfD takes a week or not, and whatever its perceived outcome.
• Repeatedly undoing an edit to an article (in this case the Qantas article) unless it is clearly WP:VANDALISM or something similar. Instead create a topic in the discussion before you undo any changes then wait if there is consensus from other contributors of the article.
• Misunderstanding the purpose and intention of the WP:NOTNEWS and other policies or guidelines. Misusing these by making applying your own view on whether a guideline or policy applies or not deters other users. Wikipedia is a strong resource for information because editors have contributors a wide variety of encyclopaedic information, not merely because of what wikipedia is not.

Clearly if you do not like the inclusion of an article then do not try to fulfill your prophecy by harassing its creator or other contributors and otherwise distracting them from focusing and working on that article. If you provoke and infuriate other editors by making it difficult for them to stay cool and you should not claim you are sensitivite or act suprised if it leads to unnecessary attack. You should assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Trying to be some form of 'policeman' (whether or not because you may enjoy spending more time studying WP policies/guidelines than other editors) is not the way to improve Wikipedia. Similarly, making veiled threats on other editors talk pages not acceptable in the Wikipedia community.

Finally, please be aware that what you first place on other peoples talk pages (User talk:Advanstra) may be responded to in kind. --Advanstra (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you get your facts straight before you start accusing editors of acting in bad faith. The AfD nomination was placed by Bidgee at 05:37, a full twelve minutes after you created the article at 05:25. It was not placed by me a minute after you created the article. Bidgee created the AfD discussion at 05:37, but forgot to add the category template, which I added at 05:41. I then discovered that the AfD notice had a redlink, which I fixed at 05:57.

Furthermore, I have not edited the Qantas article since 9 April 2010, so your accusation of edit warring on the article is also groundless, and could be seen as a PA by you on myself. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I was placing the same comment somewhere else too, and its sometimes difficult to tell who did in what in one event where it seemed to be two were acting together. I'll take your word for it and strike some parts out. Thanks for your considered reply. --Advanstra (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, i'll strike/delete the first 2 parts out and just leave the third. Sorry. It looks like its the other guy who creating the problems.--Advanstra (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Guideline for aircraft accidents and incidents

Appreciate your efforts in the past relating to WP:AIRCRASH, the current guideline never really had a consensus and it does not appear to reflect some of the discussions at articles for deletion. We need to change the emphasis that it must meet the more general guidelines like WP:EVENT and that it should only be a guide and not a scorecard to take to AfD. I have proposed a simpler guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability and tried to capture the trend from the AfDs. With your experience at AfDs your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Air India Express flight notice on Air India page

Hello Mjroots,

It's good that you have created the edit notice about not adding Air India Express flight incident on Air India's page. Kindly note that this flight is Air India Express Flight 812 and NOT Flight 182 as written by you. I kindly request you to change this in the edit notice. Thanks, Abhishek191288 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots,
Please reply to the above issue. And please do change the edit notice to Air India Express flight 812. I would be grateful to you. Thanks, Abhishek191288 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank You very much. --Abhishek191288 (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

ARS

AfD for FedEx Express Flight 647 That's pretty much what I figured his point was, yeah. Sigh! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

GAN for British Airways Flight 38

Hello. I have reviewed your good article nomination of British Airways Flight 38 and have unfortunately decided to fail the review, based on my feeling that there are several issues with the article that will take longer than the normal seven-day hold period to address. You can find my review here. –Grondemar 21:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Query regarding DYK nomination of Crossair Flight 850

Please see Template talk:Did you know#Crossair Flight 850. Thanks! Prioryman (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Paris Air show crash

Hi, thanks for expanding that article - I created it out of the existing section after being very surprised to see no separate article on it! I did intend to go back and pad it out and in particular give a bit more rigour to the "theories" section. Regarding the title, I bunged all those words in so that various searches would strike on it, but I'd not oppose a move to 1973 Paris Air Show crash. Fences&Windows 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Surgut accident

No worries Sky News is reporting one dead and ten injured, but, as usual there seems to be a lot of confusion over numbers. ASN and the Aviation Herald will probably get the story straight soon, though. Happy New Year! wackywace 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"We have Smirnoff." That's just brilliant! RIA Novosti's got some pictures of the crashed A/C, the end of the reg is 5588. Looking through a.net galleries with the search term "Kolavia Tu-154M", there's nothing with that reg. Any ideas? BTW, they're rolling their eyes at Wikipedia over at PPRuNe, if you haven't already seen it. wackywace 13:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, nice one. Sometimes I wonder why Tu-154s are still allowed in the air. Little wonder the Nato reporting name is "Careless". wackywace 13:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Av Herald wackywace 14:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI wackywace 21:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

List of aircraft by tail number

Thanks; I'll remember to update that next time. Regards, wackywace 17:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Colgan Air Flight 3407

Thank you for clarify the rules. In the Colgan article, no names are to appear except the big names (eligible for a Wikipedia article). There is an article 2011 Tucson shooting which I have mentioned your understanding of the rules. I agree with you. No names. Thank you for letting me know the rules . Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash/archive1

Hey there. I'd really appreciate it if could have a look over this article and post any comments you have at the FAC, since it looks set to be closed soon unless there are any additional reviews. Thanks, wackywace 18:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for having a look through it and for your support! I really appreciate it. Regards, wackywace 19:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

First in-flight fire on an airliner? Certainly sounds like it deserves its own page; too right I'll be defending it if it happens to end up there! wackywace 20:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been requested at the FAC page that you format your support in bold, so it is clear to the delegates how many supports there are. I didn't want to bold it myself in case it was misinterpreted. Thanks in advance, wackywace 18:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you assist?

Re your post at WT:AVIATION, you say you have back numbers of Aeroplane. Do you have the December 2005 issue? Crosswind column has the Hitler kidnap plot, which might be useable to expand the Lympne Airport article. Further info available here. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In short, yes, here is the verbatim quote from Crosswind, p. 96 by John Fricker: "Browsing through a fascinating World War Two book published in 1977, The Great Coup by Robert Hill, which described how a Junkers Ju 88C-6/R-1, equipped with new Lichenstein'/SN-2 airborne-interception radar, was flown to Scotland by its anti-Nazi Luftwaffe crew on May 9, 1943. I found an even more sensational story describing nothing less than plans for abduction of Adolf Hitler to the UK in early 1941, this could have altered the entire course of World War Two.

As with the Ju 88, this was arranged through British secret-service contacts, this time by Flugkapitän Hans Baur, then personal pilot of the Führer's Focke-Wulf FW 200C Condor executive transport. Baur had allegedly become disenchanted with Hitler and the Nazis after losing two brothers killed in Luftwaffe service. His UK contacts were reportedly made through his Bulgarian father-in-law via the British embassy in Sofia, who arranged through London a safe conduct for the Condor, with Hitler unwittingly aboard, into Lympe.

According to Hill, on February 26, 1941, Fighter C-in-C Air Marshal Sholto Douglas instructed his 11 Group commander AVM Trafford Leigh-Mallory to prepare for "arrival of a a German deserter (by air) at Lympe". Without mentioning possible passengers, detailed instructions were added concerning reception of the aircraft, which would not be intercepted if it approached with its undercarriage down, and firing red flares. Air Marshal A.T. Harris, then Deputy Chief of Air Staff, was also reportedly involved, with a target date of March 25.

Despite full-scale UK ground preparations, nothing happened, but the awaiting reception forces at Lympe were not finally withdrawn until May 28. Curiously, however, I can find no other reference to this story, either in the RAF's three-volume 1939–45 official history, or the autobiographies of Sholto Douglas and "Bomber" Harris. Can anyone quote any other reference to this extraordinary yarn?" FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This webpage gives the National Archives reference as AIR 16/619. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Penshurst Airfield

The article Penshurst Airfield you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Penshurst Airfield for things which need to be addressed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Penshurst Airfield

Article: Penshurst Airfield

Mjroots,

Not sure if your aware of this. I just looked at Penshurst Airfield and there is a big space in the Civil Accidents section, could be due to the pictures then the list of incidents starts. Does that show up on your computer? Adamdaley (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This problem shows in IE7 but not in Firefox 3.6, Google Chrome 8 or Opera 11. It's something that I've noticed in other pages, always with IE7, and seems to be associated with images in one section protruding into the one below. The "Civil accidents and incidents" section begins with the image File:Blériot155 F-AICQ.jpg, which is pushed downwards by both File:653 Sqn, RAF Penshurst.jpg and File:43-37527-N7-X 19440706 GR.jpg in the "From 1940" section. The text "On 20 August 1922, an aircraft flown by Thomas Baden Powell ..." is similarly displaced so that it starts level with the image that immediately precedes it (File:Blériot155 F-AICQ.jpg). The easiest fix that I know, other than wholesale rejigging of the page or removal of images, is to alternate the images left-aligned and right-aligned, see here. Perhaps put the Lysander and the Flying Fortress on the left, that should help. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, now I understand what the problem is, I can try and fix it. I've moved all images to the "From 1940" section, adding the Tomahawk photo, which means on my monitor things flow quite well. Hopefully this will be acceptable in IE7 too. Mjroots (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I use Internet Explorer 8. So it is sometimes not limited to Internet Explorer 7. The problem I raised has now been fixed. I can also check it on Firefox v3.6.13 or Netscape v9.0.0.6. If anyone wants feedback on those two browsers. Adamdaley (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have Internet Explorer 7, but not any other version of Internet Explorer, so I have no direct way of checking whether the problem also occurs in IE8 or IE9 (or even IE6/5/4/3/2/1). Therefore my statement "This problem shows in IE7 but not in Firefox 3.6, Google Chrome 8 or Opera 11. It's something that I've noticed in other pages, always with IE7" should be read as "This problem shows in IE (only version 7 tested) but not in Firefox 3.6.13, Google Chrome 8 or Opera 11.00. It's something that I've noticed in other pages, and of the four browsers that I have, the trouble always occurs with IE7". Pedantic version: "This problem shows in IE (only version 7.0.5730.13 tested) but not in Firefox 3.6.13, Google Chrome 8.0.552.237 or Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.00." The problem may be a general one across all versions of IE, or it may be confined to certain versions. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

GoAir

I need a small clarification on GoAir. There seem to be two pages ([2], [3]) on the web for G8 schedules. Both seem to be different. For instance, the first one does not show G8 flying out of Indore, but the second one does. Which of the two do we consider as a RS? Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Both are the same website, so the second one would be useable. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 18:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lashenden

Note you recently changed the redirect for RAF Lashenden and it now points to the wrong Headcorn it should be the current one not the WW2 one !! (not the same place) any particularly reason for the change or can it be reverted back, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Key Lime Air

I know its not your area but an IP user keeps adding text dumps of accident data to the Key Lime Air article, I and sometimes others keep reverting the addition with a user that doesnt respond. Any chance of having a look. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

List of airports in Kent

Just noticed your draft List of airports in Kent looks good, I was going to start one but as usual got distracted. Just a comment I am not sure that the RFC airfields were ever refered to as RFC Foo I think they were just Foo aerodrome or airfield. Found your draft when I was correcting the co-ords on RAF Newchurch and I was checking the incoming links. I had used the village co-ords by mistake, but have corrected it. Just thought you would like to known as you may want to correct them in your draft list. MilborneOne (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, RAF Foo, previously RFC Foo?. It won't matter too much for the moment as they are nearly all redlinks. Let's get the info down, find some refs etc and the tweaks can come later. Mjroots (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood not a huge problem, I will see if I can find a reliable ref for the names. Let me know if you need any help with the list. MilborneOne (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Template for deletion

Hi. You might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No. 50 Squadron RAF

Two of us think the temporary page Talk:No. 50 Squadron RAF/Temp is ready to move to mainspace if you'd care to do the honours. Thanks. NtheP (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Flight Avia Flight 7100

Re you reversion of an edit to Flight Avia Flight 7100, I wonder whether you may have misread WP:ORDINAL? It says: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.", so "six of the 12 people on board" would seem to be wrong in that respect. It also says "... or in words if they are expressed in one or two words", so "twelve" seems quite acceptable. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Balloon Station

It appears that the Balloon Station at Chatham was also known as the Royal Engineers Balloon Station and also housed a balloon school at St Mary's Barracks and dates from 1882! MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not much on Lidsing but it appears with Lydd to have been another 19th century army balloon site. http://www.reubique.com/20941.htm MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest just removed (turned blue) another of your Kent airfield red links RAF Wye. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

RAF Kingsnorth (WW1)?

I am a little confused by your readdition of a RAF Kingsnorth (WW1) to the list of defunct RAF Stations. I have searched all of my reference materials and cannot find any trace of it. The main puzzle being of course that there was no RAF in WW1. The station located in the vicinity of Kingsnorth was a Royal Naval Air Station during WW1 but was renamed RAF Isle of Grain in April 1918 when the RAF came into existence - and RAF Isle of Grain is already on the list, I have traced several officers as being station commander of RAF Isle of Grain during the period, but none recorded as station commander of RAF Kingnorth. I wonder if you could update me with any references you have for there actually being a RAF Kingnorth prior to WW2. Cheers and salutations. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 11:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, RAF Kingsnorth was originally RNAS Kingsnorth and separate from RAF Grain (per my hidden comment at List of RAF Stations). As it was open past the merger of RNAS and RFC into the RAF, RAF Kingsnorth is a logical title. However, there are two Kingsnorth's in Kent, and each had a RAF Station, one in WWI and the other in WWII! Thus the moving of the article to RAF Kingsnorth (WWII) to allow the original title to become a dab page.

• RAF Grain
• RAF Kingsnorth (WWI)
• RAF Kingsnorth (WWII)
• See also User:Mjroots/List of airports in Kent, currently under development. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugger, that is confusing ... did these early station namers have no thought for wikipedia editors when they named the things back then. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol! A bit like those who are currently fiddling with the software that runs this site not thinking about us who actually use it! Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the RAF Kingsnorth (WWII) page needs some sort of hatnote or explanation para in the body to prevent confusion for the readers, because it has confused the feck out of me from several hundred miles away. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 11:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote added and lede expanded to cover the situation. Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actual proof that it was RAF Kingsnorth! Mjroots (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lympne Airport

The article Lympne Airport you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Lympne Airport for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

BHP engines

Hi

Is you interest scope as wide as to include engines? Or perhaps your knowledgebase/library of information?

I have been trying to find more on the BHP series of engines from Beardmore Halford Pullinger

If you can help, it would be appreciated!

PS this was the message I was supposed to have been putting here instead of the previous one :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to use it, it is a little strange as the search returns quite a lot of non related items. Ah well I will persist with it...On the other hand it also makes me distracted a lot! too much good info, as well as pictures that I need to get into articles like Westland_Limousine and Westland-Hill_Pterodactyl :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone recommended I join Manchester Library a couple of weeks ago, so I now have access to too many lol. I joined there as they have a lot of the Manchester Guardian early editions. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United Kingdom

Just noticed that an IP has removed all the entries from List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United Kingdom that dont have an article, even while I was adding them! The note on the talk page says they must Have a dedicated article on Wikipedia. Any comment welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Bole International Airport

Hi Mjroots. I see that you have put the article on semi-protection for a week. Ethiopian's flight to Milan-Malpensa don't appear to be bookable on their website and no official press release from the airline was given in regards to Milan. Also, their route map don't even have Milan served at the moment. Maybe after the protection has expired, the airline will announce the route in a press release. Also, googled Ethiopian Airlines and came out nothing. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made a hidden note that Milan should not be listed until it is officially announced by the airline. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Lympne airport

Hi

Let me start by saying that I am not defending my edits just because I made them :¬)

First of all let me tackle "Date,":

• In July 1990, there was a large thing that happened. - Incorrect
• In July 1990, as there was a large thing that happened, this happened also. - Correct

The thing that happened is not an added point but is directly related to the date.

See also: Wikipedia:MOS § Commas, and User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_6 § Commas_after_year

Sentences - Short sentences are generally bad prose.

• "Once landed the aircraft was briefly lifted from the ground in a gust whilst ground handling staff were taking it to a hangar and winds of 82 mph were recorded"
• "Winds of 82 miles per hour (132 km/h) were recorded"

Here the second version is not really good prose, IMO. The sentence is not joined to anything and so is irrelevant, was the wind on the same day, in the same place, etc. If it is not relevant then it should be removed. TO make it relevant it is joined to the previous statement. To leave it as a short sentence is to make it sound like a list that has been added together.

I hope this explanation is ok, but if you need further clarification of my statements I will be happy to do so. I understand that "On date," may be the way that you are used to writing, and that editorial choice is probably why you are putting them back in again, but it is unfortunately not correct prose nor grammar.

On a lighter note though, thanks for spotting those little mistakes I had made, "that/than" and the "notice to airmen/Notice to Airmen" ;¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I get this a lot with articles that have "However," all the way through them. More often than not they are totally unnecessary and can be deleted, not the case with dates though!

These small punctuation details are a pain in the **** most of the time - although I have been told of the "punctuation Nazis", it was suggested that I might be one myself by one editor. I have learnt a lot from the GOCE editors, I had to go back and add lots of commas to articles I had changed from "Month 1, 1900, was a" to "Month 1, 1900 was a" - only because the MoS states "one comma" when it should in fact state two!

I hope that you don't consider me a punctuation Nazi as well! lol Chaosdruid (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the unexpected present :¬) Congratulations !

Unfortunately I have to go back to work this week after a couple of weeks off so I won;t be around much. I hope to get back to putting pictures from Flight into pre 1940 aircraft where needed, it's a little project that needs doing I think.

Once again, well done though, I did wonder if it would make it and I am glad it did. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

SWA 812

So I finish the talk page guy's nomination, !vote speedy keep, Mr. Otters closes it after one more !vote... You know someone's gonna complain tomorrow... Gotta love it. N419BH 05:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Saint-Inglevert Airfield

You're welcome :) BTW, I did not analyse the French references. yet. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been creating a couple of articles with quotes as the result of a search, ie searching for "this article" lead to the creation of "this article". Thus the move to signal square from "signal square".

It's the aéroclub du Boulonnais (note the é :D), in French upper case is only used at the beginning of a sentence and with names. http://www.ut.ngb.army.mil/clp/linguists/fbis/french/frta.htmal translates Ateliers de chantiers maritimes du Boulonnais by Boulogne Navy Yard, I guess we may translate as Boulogne aeroclub, since boulonnais doesn't mean much to me; but then I live in Paris... Regards, Comte0 (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Lufthansa

Hey Mj, how are things? I was looking at that Lufthansa article (by chance) and found various changes made without explanation or verification, specifically two edits by User:Picoz, a new editor. It's too far outside of my field to look into it--do you mind having a look? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

UAL 232

Know who typically does the GA reviews for aviation accidents? I nominated that page for GA status two weeks ago and it hasn't been touched. N419BH 18:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Mjroots, I've read your interview on the Signpost a few weeks ago, and since I've occasionally monitored your activities. It seems that you're interested in aviation crashes, so I'm just popping by to tell you that I have access to this book, so if you need any help, just visit my talk page. Also, can you do me a favour? Since you're into civil aviation, and the Airbus A330 is a civil aircraft, how about giving your thoughts on whether it should be promoted to FA status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive2? Like I said, if you want help for anything, just pop by. Cheers Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 07:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Air France Flight 7 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Air France Flight 7 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air France Flight 7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Blue

G'day from Oz. Apparently (i.e. no RSes yet, just a blog on FlightGlobal and speculation on message boards etc.) Australia's second-largest airline Virgin Blue is going to be renamed Virgin Australia next week. An editor has started a new article for V. Aust. with one line so far, stating it is the new name for V. Blue. I think a page move will be more appropriate - once there is a public announcement or RS - as it will be a rebranding rather than a new entity with a new AOC. I believe that V. Aust. should be deleted and the name protected until such announcement or RS is forthcoming. What do you think? YSSYguy (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, could be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL, if the airline is rebranded then the article can be moved to to new branding name. Bidgee (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and redirected the VA article (not really an article) to the VB article. Bidgee (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Another stalker! That sounds a good plan for now. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Some reason your talk page is on my watch list. LOL Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, Friendly stalkers welcome here. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Autogyro identification

Hi, I don't know how well up you are on identification of autogyros, but I recently watched the Doctor Who story Planet of the Spiders (BBCDVD 1809, first broadcast 1974), where in part two there is a multi-vehicle chase, and one vehicle is an autogyro. The registration is G-AXVK, and it is extremely similar to this autogyro, registration G-AXVM; the only visible difference that I can pick out, other than the markings, is that AXVM has fairings over the wheels whereas AXVK doesn't.

If you have the Blue Peter Seventh Book (pub. 1970, ISBN 0 563 09398 6), the same type (without wheel fairings) is shown on front and rear covers, but only one registration is visible, that of the one on the back cover - and then only the last two letters, RC (could it possibly be G-AXRC?).

I have a book

• Howe, David J.; Walker, Stephen James (1996). "Planet of the Spiders (ZZZ)". Doctor Who The Handbook - The Third Doctor. London: Doctor Who Books. pp. 163, 166. ISBN 0 426 20486 7.

which states:

After a chase involving ... an autogyro

Locations: ... Membury Airfield, Membury, Wiltshire

The gyroplane [sic] was hired from Campbell Aircraft Ltd of Membury Airfield and was flown by A. M. W. Curzon-Herrick.

but doesn't name the type of autogyro. Are Campbell Aircraft Ltd the manufacturers of the Campbell Cricket? If so, did they produce any other types which appear similar?

What I want to do is link Campbell Cricket to Planet of the Spiders (and vice versa), but for that I need an explicit source. Any ideas? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Aeronorte

FYI and follow-up. Since it is an old issue, I have copied the whole section from my discussion page.

It seems we have a problem. According to ASN, an airline called Aeronorte lost a DC-3 in 1973. Looks like I'll have to do some digging here. For the moment, I'll un-link Aeronorte from the 1973 DC-3 crash list. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

dear Mjroots. I find it strange as well. What I know for sure is that Aeronorte was bought and merged into Aerovias Brasil in 1953 which in turn was bought by Varig in 1961 (complicated history). Presently there exists another Aeronorte in Portugal but I reckon it has nothing to do with this accident. On the other hand, Mirituba is a small location in the municipality of Itaituba in Pará, Brazil. My huntch is that Aeronorte some kind of business or development company in the Amazon and this DC-3 was a privatly-owned aircraft. I however was not able to gather further evidence. The mistery continues. BRGDS (Brunoptsem (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Mystery solved as per a kind e-mail from Harro Ranter, the president of ASN. The full name of the company in reference is Aeronorte Indústria e Comércio, being a private company different from the Aeronorte - Empresa de Transportes Aéreos Norte do Brasil mentioned in the wikiarticle. So the article is correct as it is. To avoid future mistakes I will place an explanatory hidden note. BRGDS (Brunoptsem (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC))

Aufklärungsgruppe at Saint-Inglevert Airfield

Hello, thank you for your edit at Saint-Inglevert Airfield. You may have noticed that I've been wikifying the links on this article for a while, would you mind having a look at Aufklärungsgruppe? I considered redirecting to Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)#Gruppe or Glossary of German military terms, however it also appears in the order of battle of Operation Albion and Order of battle at Jutland. In the end, most of what I found on the internet looked very much like this, which is filled up with so much military jargon that it ends up being unreadable, so I created the stub. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's outside my area of knowledge, I've copied your post over to WT:MILHIST. Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the noise. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a problem. If I can help, I will. If I can't, I'll try and find someone who can help. Mjroots (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

theaviationindex.com

Please see discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Firebird (aircraft)

any help with this article will be appreciated.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

One Two Go

Thanks for letting me know about that!

I'll see what links to other pages on his site, and what links to the document. I'll reinstate any cites that go to the document WhisperToMe (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I went on the talk page and posted direct links to some of the files on the website, so people can use the files later

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Lympne Airport

Is there any reason the IATA and ICAO codes have been struckthrough in both the lead and the infobox? It's not a subject I'm familiar with but if they no longer apply it seems strange to leave them in the article this way. NtheP (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Penshurst Airfield

Thanks for your enquiry. The PDF http://www.leighhistorical.org.uk/References/Leigh_at_War.pdf seems to be about wartime stuff, and I can't find anything about "Mignet", "Pou" or "Flea" in it. I don't yet have any sight of evidence that there was any grounding or banning of Poux, only a decision to not issue new Authorisations to Fly, or to not renew existing AFs, until the applicant provided evidence that approved modifications had been carried out. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

IrAero and Avis Amur crashes

G'day again, and good on you; I figured you would re-create the articles, that's why I was comfortable with asking for them to be G5 speedied. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

G'day, please read this message on Russavia's talk page from a speaker of Russian. Your edit to undo my changes to the crash article has also been reverted by another speaker of Russian. Cheers. YSSYguy (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

First Air Flight 6560

If you mean this page the times are there. The "CYRB 201700Z" is the airport ident, 20 is the day and 1700Z is the time in Zulu time. However, there is a problem between the bolded METAR and the crash times given in the media. Resolute, Nunavut is on CDT (UTC−05:00) which means that if the accident occurred around 12:50 CDT it would be 1750Z. But the METAR in bold is for 1600Z, 1649Z and 1700Z which would be 1100 CDT, 1140 CDT and 1200 CDT. The reason it's confusing is that the reports say the accident happened 10 minutes after the last radio call which would be 12:40 CDT. Now one of the most important things we have to do as soon as possible after an accident is send out a weather observation. In this case it looks like the one at 1649Z but it's an hour before the accident and there isn't one for 1750z (1250 CDT). Hope that makes some sense. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I finally found the days METAR at Weather Underground, for some reason it kept wanting me to look at the AUTO station. It looks as if the Aviation Herald has all the METAR. I don't know if the weather changes rapidly in CYRB but there should have been a special when the cloud went to 500 ft prior to the 1649Z and another after that but before 1700Z. I don't know if the WU page you see is the same as what I got but I can see both CDT and ZULU. And as it's 1:10 am here I must be off. I'll check back in the morning. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I talked with one of the other guys at work and we went through the METAR but couldn't really come up with anything other than speculation which is not really worth repeating. One thing I just noticed is that this says who the plane was chartered by. It says he's the owner of the hotel but he's much more than that see ozzie kheraj or aziz kheraj. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

FOR Article locked

Dear Mjroots, I bring to your attention the case of Pinto Martins International Airport. The article has been semi-protected since December 5, 2009. Perhaps it is time to unlock it. BRGDS, (Brunoptsem (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC))

 Done, hopefully it won't be necessary to reapply the protection. Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: London Southend Airport

Actually, the last 3 reverts I did was my own edits. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Started it at WP:AIRPORTS talk page but this issue has been discussed many times before and is still an issue currently and all it reach was more arguements. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Biman Bangladesh Airlines

Thanks for protecting the page. I'm trying to find a reliable source for the matter (unlucky search, so far). Regards.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that not only IP users are fond of adding unverifiable information. Just don't know how to proceed. Any piece of advice will help...--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added Jetstreamer (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Issue at SkyTeam

Hi, could you please look into this matter. I have already posted in MilborneOne's talk page regarding here. Please comment on this. Thanks, — Abhishek  ^Talk 01:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Sabre Slayer?"

Help needed to avert an obvious edit war. See: "Sabre Slayer: controversy. FWiW, I've done all I can ... Bzuk (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

Messerschmitt Me 321 accident

Hi MJ. I found a ref to an accident in testing of the Messerschmitt Me 321- I quote "Another test flight, made with a fully-loaded Gigant, established a grim record. As the glider was just airborne, the rockets on one side failed to ignite; the huge machine veered under asymmetric thrust, dragging the Troika together, and the three Mell0s crashed into each other and dragged the Gigant down as well. The glider had been carrying troops and the death roll was 129 men, probably the world's worst aircraft disaster up to that time." This is from "The Secret War" Brian Johnson BBC 1978 ISBN 0563 174250 page 263. "Nest of eagles: Messerschmitt production and flight-testing at Regensburg 1936-1945" by Peter Schmoll makes no mention of this accident; the BBC book doesn't say where it happened, but a photo on the same page refers to Leipheim. I suspect this accident didn't happen, but just thought I'd let you know, as I'm passing the BBC book on to a charity shop tomorrow. Ning-ning (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

William Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich also mentions this crash as occuring during testing, although it does not give a date or location.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds as though there may be just enough sources to make an entry in the relevant list of accidents involving military aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of AeroUnion Flight 302 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AeroUnion Flight 302 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AeroUnion Flight 302 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.- William 12:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Air Accidents Investigation Institute Article

Mjroots,

I thought you'd be interested in expanding the Air Accidents Investigation Institute Article. Since it's only a "Stub" class. Adamdaley (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mj!

Just popping in to sticky-beak via the Wikiproject Airlines page when I noted you are unwell! Hope it is not too bad and you will be ok. I myself have recently had a few health 'issues' raised after a CAT scan.

This may be of interest re Qantas grounding it's entire fleet: Simon Benson & Vanda Carson (29 October 2011 6:02 AM UTC ) "Shock as Qantas chief Alan Joyce grounds airline's domestic and international fleet". The Daily Telegraph (Australia). Retrieved 29 October 2011
Regards, 220.101.30 talk^\edits (aka 220.101) 07:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Am currently on medication that is making me very tired and thus editing is erratic atm, thus I can't guarantee to be around at specific times if I'm needed in a hurry.

The Qantas story is quite a big one, will be intersting to see if Qantas folds, as has been suggested in some parts of the press. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I am currently up too late editing (+6:40 am) which is making me very tired, (despite several 'keyboard naps'). Hope your health issue sorts out OK.
Indeed Qantas could be left (is?) in dire straits by the current dispute. Glad I don't have any of their shares! Perhaps the Gov. will step in and force the unions back? PM Gillard is very unpopular right now, but might redeem herself if they resolve this event. 220.101.30 talk^\edits (aka 220.101) 19:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I also had a CAT scan earlier this year; that and a whole heap of other tests mean that I am now officially suffering from sarcoidosis, which on top of my blepharitis, occasional headaches and unemployment, mean that I'm not 100% either. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Air India Flight 829 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Air India Flight 829 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air India Flight 829 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. William 22:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Eagle III MBB Bo 105 accident

I've decided to delete the article, but left open the future option of WP:HISTMERGE as a method of merging articles without leaving a redirect behind. Drop me a line if you need help. Deryck C. 22:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Cargolux Flight 7933 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cargolux Flight 7933 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cargolux Flight 7933 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. William 21:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Compdude123's talk page.
Message added 22:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Compdude123 (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 2010 Air Service Berlin Douglas C-47 crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2010 Air Service Berlin Douglas C-47 crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Air Service Berlin Douglas C-47 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. William 23:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Saint-Inglevert Airfield

Thanks for letting me know. You should nominate it for a good article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

location of the ATR 72 crash

You made a mess of things, leaving Gorkovka in the article and reinstating info that the crash happened 30 km away from the airport. First of all, take a look on a map, using the coords or on Wikimapia.org, at 1 nm south east of the runway -- you will see Gorkovka, the village, right there. Also on wikimapia someone in Russian identified the place of the crash. I highly doubt the veracity of the Russian sources. Aviation Herald mentions them, by the way, but still gives the crash site coordinates and a graphic at 1 nm downwind. Our USA Today source also gives Tyumen as localization of the crash. Best, --Mareklug ^talk 08:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Korean Air Flight 803

I just created an article on this aviation disaster. Please feel free to proofread my work and add any Times articles on Flight 803 if they exist. Thanks for the help....William 14:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look, and The Times can't add anything to the information already in the article. Will give it a c/e later. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I moved this over here. When I leave a message on somebody's talk page, I automatically make a routine of checking back for replies.

Some further digging on Korean Air 803 found this.[4] The pilot and co-pilot were found guilty of neglecting their duty. That makes two new air crash articles in a row that I've made where the flight crew was convicted afterwards. The other is Swissair Flight 316....William 19:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The White Bird/L'Oiseau Blanc conundrum

It appears the [move] discussion is becoming tangential and requires some resolution; how does an admin proceed to close the loop?

MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC) advises: You will need to find an admin who hasn't taken part in the debate! so I can't close, I think User:The Bushranger has commented as well, so he can't either. But with more support for a move then oppose, it shouldn't be difficult to find somebody to close it. I see User:Mjroots (this is where you come in) is active at the moment or somebody from the mil project.

"Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." (with apologies to George Lucas) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this close. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Dead links in article 'Alaska Coastal Airlines'

Hi. The article 'Alaska Coastal Airlines' has some dead links that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix them?

Dead: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=17019&key=0

• You added this in January 2008.
• The bot tested this link on 26 March, 28 March, 30 March and yesterday, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Dead: https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=167&key=0

• You added this in January 2008.
• The bot tested this link on 26 March, 28 March, 30 March and yesterday, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

These links are marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Meters or feet?

Would appreciate your clarification at Talk:Mount_Salak_Sukhoi_Superjet_100_crash#Meters_or_feet.3F. Jpatokal (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 in the 1960s

I'm going to enter the yearly crashes into this and the other decades articles and then make all the yearly articles as redirects. The yearly articles often only have one entry.

WP:See Also says 'The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page)'. I removed the See Also redlinks in this article....William 20:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you comment out redlinks. If a list only has a single entry, then that entry should be moved to the decade list pending creation of a full list. These lists are a long-term project but will be got round to in due course. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My talk page asks that you reply where the discussion started, so please do that in the future. What do you mean by comment out the redlinks? The decade articles, 60's and 70's are just massive links to the yearly articles which from the few I looked have little content. Put the crashes in the decades articles and make the yearlys redirects at this point looks better that what we have now. It can always be undone....William 21:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

To comment text out, use <!-- before the commented out text, and --> after it. Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Important information on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Traces of explosives (TNT and Nitroglycerin) on the wreck
Proposal IV
Voyt13 (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Cargolux Flight 7933 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cargolux Flight 7933 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cargolux Flight 7933 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ...William 23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Asking for your input on a matter

Over at the Wikiproject Aviation/Aviation accident task force page [5]. You were chosen by myself because of your past work or input on aviation crash articles. Thank you for the help....William 11:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions about Dutch version of El Al report

I found that http://web.archive.org/web/20090205093738/http://verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/kennisplein/uploaded/MIN/2005-07/39448/ElAl_flight_1862.pdf says that the English report of the El Al Flight 1862 (Bijlmer Disaster) accident is the original, and that the Dutch translation would be issued later.

Do you know where the Dutch report is? I'm trying to see if anybody knows where a copy of the Dutch translation is located.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 6517 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 6517 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 6517 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--Petebutt (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Airports names

Hi Mjroots, sorry to bother you but I really don't know where to ask. Can you direct me to the right talk page to find out what criterias are being used for titols of articols regarding airports? Just to give you an idea, the articol about Rome's Fiumicino airport at the moment is Leonardo da Vinci–Fiumicino Airport and like this many other airport names have been changed/moved randomly (this is my impression) without I can work out the criterias used. Many thanks!--Sal73x (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's a bit of an odd choice to use as an example actually, as the only move in the last four and a half years that wasn't reverted was the "hyphen hysteria" of changing to an endash. But anyway, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENG apply first and foremost - what is the airport's most commonly used name in English? If there isn't one, then the "official" name should be used. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(Oh, and Mjroots, you might want to archive your talk page, the 315kb size causes mucho lag!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It sounds easy but the thrut is that it's more complicated than that. The problem is that an user has moved several articols and to fix the problem I have to "Requested move". Before doing that I wanted to check with other users how we ended with the current situation. Thanks Bushranger, your help is appreciated.--Sal73x (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of the abbreviation KhZ

Hi Mjroots. Do you have "Last of the Wartime Lavochkins", AIR International, Bromley, Kent, U.K., November 1976, Volume 11, Number 5, pages 245–246. - if so, please could you verify the capitalisation (or even better, the meaning) of the abbreviation KhZ found in the last paragraph of Sergei Korolev#Imprisonment. Thanks --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a TPS here but I understand that KhZ is for chemical ignition "Khimicheskoe Zazhiganie". MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Aha, that would be the way that hypergolic propellants ignite then. Now, what's the Russian for that? I've looked at UDMH and dinitrogen tetroxide but don't see anything that might mean "hypergolic". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: - Sorry, I don't have that book. My aviation interests lie mainly on the civil side. Sorry for late reply, been house-sitting and used my other account whilst there. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Higher hours claim

re this edit of yours, I have removed it as I think "at least" covers it. I don't know what that means but I'm not sure we need to have two conflicting airline sources in any event. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Air France Latécoère 631 crash

Can you explain to me and others why you said the crash is a ditching? The article says the cause if unknown. It also says only garbled transmissions were heard from the aircraft.13:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice job on the article. I linked it to the existing incident in the 50+ fatality list. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of IrAero Flight 103 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IrAero Flight 103 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IrAero Flight 103 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Petebutt (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Hi MJ, I have nominated this article for deletion as I cannot see any notability in the subject, can you enlighten me if there is something I missed? Thanks--Petebutt (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of air france incident

Hello, I am rather new to Wikipedia editing and as a result have NO CLUE about how to post things or why you'd remove my edit or anything like that. I listed this event for several reasons, 1 because it happened in my home town, 2 because I class it as an INCIDENT. I gave a link for a reference although I do not have a clue how to actually add it in the sources bit I don't think you have any right to police Wikipedia.. It took me ages of studying the edit box to even figure out what kinds of things like / and [ etc to use to create the post... Also it is likely to change air france's regulations on flying whilst pregnant so... leave me a note on my page if you want or don't I won't lose any sleep.. Ianpatton5 (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash

The article Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LGA _talk^edits 07:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

RA-98010

A real pity, not to many aircraft of the type around. Thanks for the addition.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: - Pprune, whilst not a reliable source, is a good research tool . Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

CCTV footage of Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down

Here's a link to an article that has the CCTV footage of the shootdown along with the RT television report that showed the footage [6]. The shootdown occurs at 1:46 in the CCTV video.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 2014 Olsberg mid-air collision

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2014 Olsberg mid-air collision. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Olsberg mid-air collision. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Olsberg mid-air collision – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Olsberg mid-air collision

Was almost certainly created by Ryan K. I'd delete it and undelete the other article if I were an admin....William 21:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've asked MilborneOne to do the honours for the sake of openness. Had I spotted the sock I'd have deleted his article per WP:BAN, even though it was created first. Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I informed The Bushranger. FYI whenever I see a new crash article, the first thing I check is who the editor was who created it. No problem and Cheers!...William 22:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Jinnah International Airport

Why did you revert my edit? I explained my edit and the hidden note given was well explained. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Beijing was added as a destination but I removed it as stated in the note. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines + Kathmandu

Hello Mjroots. Regarding this [7], have you seen the discussion at the article's talk?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Villa Castelli helicopter crash

Actually, I translated the tweet for myself :-) I follow Wiltord on Twitter so I'd already read it, and even easier to do! Because I translated the hashtags he used I included them in the quote of the tweet. I felt this was more thorough, and if quoting someone I like to do it in full :-) Sophoife (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Dropped

It's actually here at Fr:Dropped. :) This is Paul (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So it is, I didn't spot that. :) The link should really be to Dropped (French TV series) or even just Dropped (TV series) as we don't currently have another related article. This is Paul (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your Delta 1086 advice

Writing something with thought is very Wikipedian. Just causing trouble and saying "no" is common but not wikipedian. Thanks for your advice. With 24 injuries, this is something. I saw an article with the left wing. It is banged up. If it were a new plane, they might fix it but with a 1987 plane, they might not. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

GRUMMAN Albtross article

I am sure you did not intend to revert this article being that you are undoubtedly aware that Wiki policy require one to request citations before reverting edits. Likewise, an editor of your creditals must be aware that the large class of amphibians would include the PBM-5A and the follow on Marlin as well as those of other nations, so the Albtross in comparison was of moderate size and capacity. you mustalso be aware that the USAF adopted the term SAR and use of ASR Iis an anachronistic in this article. I trust you will be so proper as to reverse your mistaken revert of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B026:8900:FE84:8E03:F297:C1CF (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@2600:1002:B026:8900:FE84:8E03:F297:C1CF: I never reverted any edits you made, although I am aware that other editors have reverted you. What I was seeing was an edit war. Options were to block you, or to semi-protect the article. I chose the latter. I suggest that you now open a discussion at talk:Grumman HU-16 Albatross if you haven't already done so. Propose your edits there, backed up by reliable sources and we'll discuss the issues arising therefrom. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

M, Just for information I have blocked the IP, he has had been blocked for legal threats amongst other things but uses a different IP everday refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat against Nigel Ish by block-evading IP. Despite the blocks they keep appearing on American second world war American military aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Difficulties with a User

G'day, I am having difficulties with User:Mkmillenium, whom I see you have had some interaction with recently. There is an edit war brewing at Flyways Airlines; he is of the opinion that this is the way the article should appear and I obviously think that it isn't. His edit summary "This was talked with an administrator an[d] is the style to be kept" is something I find impossible to believe. As far as I can see there is no evidence in his contribution history this discussion took place; at best he has misunderstood something, at worst he is being deliberately misleading. YSSYguy (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

He has now undone my work three times in the last two hours, and earlier today undid an edit by another User to reduce the size of the image. There are definite ownership issues here in my opinion. YSSYguy (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Good day I have huge difficulties with user YSSYguy, making me problems. I've created the article in english Flyways Airlines it was agreed to kept the Style with Administrator Happysquirrel , ie it is talked to him to keep as it is. The user YSSYguy keeps fighting to impose his style even with not appropriate information. Please see it. At the talk page of Happysquirrel it has the announce to keep as it is and it was understood from him/her. I hope that sanctions would be given to User YSSYguy for not respecting my initiation page and my contributions. There is a fight from him which is totally not contributive, not helps also Wikipedia. In fact the missleading distortions and destructive editions of YSSYguy it is no need in the article. As creator of the page version i have the copyright and responsibility of the article and to keep watching. All his/her modifications continue to be undone. Regards.

@Mkmillennium: as you were told by Happysquirrel, you do not own any article you create. Expect any article you do create to be scrutinized for compliance with Wikipedia policies, and edited by other users, such as YSSYguy in the normal process of editing.

You don't know everything about a subject, in fact, nobody does. Even experts in certain subjects (such as myself) don't know everything. But, by contributing what we do know individually, together we can create a better article and encyclopedia. Now, the place to discuss issues is talk:Flyways Airlines. Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mkmillenium: - have you considered putting the image of the aircraft in the infobox? Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear. I am not an admin, nor have I claimed to be one. I will gladly participate in the discussion on the talk page. I am very glad someone else is taking an interest. Happy Squirrel (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Mjroots, i made enourmous work yesterday in searching and testing the appearance of the file and this was the best i got. I would like to have my own made file big enough in the article as the company has just 1 aircraft and its is on ground yet waiting for the flights. In fact, the webpage of them exists, but no flight is made yet. It is pretty new and as has just few info about, why i kept the appearance of aircraft in this style bigger to take the attention, because info is almost nothing. In infobox would be too small. But I respect only of you changes. Please see more at SSC. (url blacklisted skyscraper city thread 1843108) Regards. The problem was reported further to other people.

Difficulties to get my contribution to this page accepted

Hello Mjroots, again it has fight between users and the contribution made by me at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LATAM_Airlines_Group seems the best until now. It is the case that the livery of airplane is presented in internal meetings and it was step by step as a merchandising and marketing reasons to be spread in the public opinion to see the reactions, so it is already known as you see here: (url blaklisted kyscraper city thread 986028&page=183) and mainly the photo montage at AEROIN a specialized Aircraft Market Magazine. It the ressonance would be good acceptable, this is implemented following weeks. Regards

• IMPORTANT: If the article with the submitted drawing made entirely by me is really not accepted, then i please ask this contribution and the file to be entirely removed from Wikipedia and deleted it entirely, when I would not leave the right anymore public. If it is not to be used in page, so it would be kept only at my own and my facebook page about transportation design, no where else and if is really not kept I allow nobody to use it without my permission in responsible by law, the misuse. Sincerely. MKmillenium

@Mkmillenium: - bad news there. Under the terms of the licence you released the image on, such release is irrevocable. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Report of USER 200.28.248.144

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:200.28.248.144

I would like to report 200.28.248.144 for keeping undoing the contributions. It was already explained several times. Please do sanctions in this mobile user. Fighting in undoing the contributions is not a real contribution at all. Thanks.

G'day Mj; firstly I apologise to you for dragging you into this sh1tfight. As there are reliable reports (USA Today and Flight International to name two) that the new LATAM aircraft livery will not be revealed until next year, the A320 image that MKmillenium has created really ought to be treated as original research. The IP was quite justified in removing it, and MKmillenium is edit-warring (13 reverts in the last 67-and-a-half hours) with everyone else that goes near the article - MilborneOne included - to keep 'his' article the way he likes it. He is not interested in working collaboratively. You have bent over backwards to accommodate him, but surely enough is enough. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact you do not know nothing of Brazil like I do and this image was first created intern at TAM and after at AEROIN Flight Magazine, as explained. Your fight is really childish to say at least and do not contribute at all using other IP mobile devices... So stop. I sincerely ask Mjroots to close the LATAM Airlines 12 pages for a while to avoid this again. I hope that User YSSYguy because of misuse of IP addresses pretending to be several people be banned from editing in Wikipedia. At all it is not contributive. It is not adding information, but just destroying. Regards. Well, the IP is in Chile and I am in Australia, so I don't think it was me. Let me check...no, definitely not in Chile right now. YSSYguy (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's strange, I'm not in Chile either! Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though french Administrator Myst is participating in the fight together with Mobile User 200.14.107.2

Would that be the Myst who has made no edits on the English Wikipedia since March 2013? It's almost as if there is some sort of alliance out to get you....I know! It's the Star Alliance, upset because you put their logo on the aircraft in the image!!! YSSYguy (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Thank you for an intervention. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, I have noticed that Deeday continues with a deemed of creating a conspiracy theory section. Could you please extend a lock on this page for a longer time as per MilbornOne's recommendation? Its due to expire tomorrow. Im agreeing on some things with you guys (creation a separate page for the Smolensk Conference) but on others I strongly disagree (independents scholars findings "conspiracy theories") The page should stay as it is for a while until all gets cooled down to prevent another edit war. Thank you so much. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Airlines

Dear moderator, this article: Azerbaijan Airlines was edited according to official information. I'm an employee of this company. You can check information on official website. Please revert to my edits. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarki-Wiki (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Polish Air Crash

Mjroots, please lock Polish Air Crash Page. D-dayUK inserted "Conspiracy theories" section and removed huge amount of information. That wasn't decided in latest discussion. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, find reliable, mainstream, independent sources that present the assassination theory as a credible idea and I'll be the first one to add it to the article. Otherwise, the Conspiracy theories section is there to stay, and stay no bigger than that (and no: anonymous, politically biased and ad-hoc created websites like the various smolenskcrash.whatever do not count as reliable, mainstream, independent sources). --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

We have been there already DeedayUK, (see talk page). Stop pushing your POV and stop removing sourced information.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we discussed it before, and nobody said that you were right, in case you didn't notice. Plenty of reliable sources describe the ideas you keep pushing as conspiracy theories (to repeat myself: BBC, The Economist, TIME, The Times, New York Times, Al Jazeera etc), so the article will reflect it. Get over it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You AGAIN removed all sourced information and inserted your own POV against the advice to keep the page without "conspiracy theories" section. Move this discussion to talk page. Mjroots please lock this page mean time. Regards GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Deeday, here is an opinion that further editing supposed to be based on (in case you forgot): " Been asked to look at this discussion and the related edit war and I have to recommend that we change the text back to the stable version at 14:37 19 September 2015. I cant see any of the recent additions adding anymore to what the Law and Justice investigation section in that version says without clearly breaking WP:UNDUE. Adding info on the so called Smolensk Conferences does nothing for the article other than act as a promotional material. We dont need a conspiracy section as most of the major points are covered in the Law and Justice investigation section per 14:37 19 September 2014. If the users think that the Smolensk Conferences is notable and encyclopedic value then they should consider a seperate article on that conference and defend it at an AfD if required but is has no place here. And also to support Mjroots keeping the article locked as it is clear some users will not drop the stick. Thanks, MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)" I have followed that recommendation, you DID NOT by introducing " conspiracy theories" section. Please do not push your way DeeDay. Regards, ThanksGizzyCatBella (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit war in 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash article

Hi, the article of 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash is being edited five times a day - mostly edits and reverts from users User:GizzyCatBella and User:Deeday-UK. Even though some of the edits are grounded in Wikipedia rules there is no consensus reach. Instead arguments are repeated in edits description. Talk page is filled with discussion going nowhere. I think you should consider locking the article again as you stated in this article's talk page. Hope talking to you is the proper way to handle this situation.Lukaszsw (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

New article that may interest you

I just started a new article tonight: 2016 US Marine helicopter collision. The jist is, two giant military cargo helicopters destroyed, and 12 US Marines lost. Sad day for Hawaii, and indeed all of the US. You and I have collaborated on similar articles before, so I thought this might interest you. I want to expand it further, but I'm exhausted and I'm done for the night. I'll check back in tomorrow. Maybe someone will beat me to it. Juneau Mike (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Juneau Mike: Not much that I can add. Tail numbers would be nice to have. I'm sure these will become know in the coming days. Beware of deletionists! Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: - it's late, the booze has kicked in. This ping should work! Mjroots (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated!! It has been a rough several months for the Marines. Seven Marines and four Army died last March in this incident, 2015 Eglin Air Force Base helicopter crash, and eight died during another crash in the Himalayas after the Nepalese quake last May.

I don't mean to be morbid, but I don't see how the twelve missing Marines from last Fridays incident could still be alive. It will be going on the fifth day of searching in a few hours, and all four of the life rafts (which probably auto-deployed when the helicopters were destroyed) were empty and showed no signs of ever being occupied. I did find a nice, aerial photo of the Marine base the two helicopters departed from, and added that to the article. Again, thanks for your input, as always!Juneau Mike (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, at this point there won't have been any survivors. That and the loss of two of the largest helicopters in US service adds weight to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The search was ended yesterday, after the helicopters were found on the ocean floor. As the expression goes, I don't believe in coincidences. Thought you might want an update. Thanks for your interest in the article.Juneau Mike (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The article just needs a bit of structure and it should be fine. Mjroots (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

Does 2016 Turøy helicopter crash meet the list inclusion criteria. Fixuture (talk · contribs) added an entry for it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: The transfer of personnel from shore to rig and vice versa is a commercial operation, so on that basis, the answer is yes. If by "commercial" you mean "airline" (scheduled and charter flights), then no. If you want to restrict the list to airline operations, then best to start a discussion on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I meant whether the helicopter net the inclusion guidelines[8]. Is it big enough an aircraft?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: "Max takeoff weight: 11,200 kg (24,692 lb)" - yes, it's big enough. Over 20,000lb MTOW. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Emirates Flight 521

Re your message: No worries! It didn't bother me. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of American Airlines Flight 331/METAR

The article American Airlines Flight 331/METAR has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable, can be merged to American Airlines Flight 331

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of American Airlines Flight 331/METAR for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Airlines Flight 331/METAR is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 331/METAR until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pppery 13:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Credit For Article

Any chance I could get the credit for creating the page LaMia Airlines Flight 2933, it seems to have disappeared with all the mergers we did earlier on... I know its not a big deal but just trying to build up my resume here on wikipedia as I'm a younger fellow. Would really appreciate it, thanks. Martinillo (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Martinillo: - Apparently the credit for your creation of the 2016 Columbian plane crash article has become lost. It looks like two or three of us were trying to do the same thing at the same time. Suggest we concentrate on expanding the article then I'll add you to the ITN candidate template so you'll get a credit if it appears on ITN. Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I very much appreciate it. Let me know when you have done that.. Lets keep up the good work! Regards. Martinillo (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested new article about yesterdays air disaster in Nevada

I have suggested a new article, about the crash of an air ambulance that occurred in Elko, Nevada yesterday. Four people were killed, the plane was destroyed and there was further damage on the ground. I suggested the article (here) I thought you might be interested, and would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, and I hope you are well. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: Medevac crashes are quite common. To quote from here- "It was the latest tragedy involving a medical services flight, a sub-specialty of aviation that has faced past criticism for inadequate safety procedures in the past.

In 1988 and again in 2006, the NTSB conducted special safety projects on emergency medical service (EMS) operations following increased accidents. Medical fights are particularly risky, experts said, because flight crews are motivated to perform heroic measures even under risky conditions.

Following another rash of accidents in 2008, including one that killed four people in Aurora, the NTSB added helicopter EMS safety on its “most wanted” list of safety improvements."

WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

LaMia

The Colombian civil aviation authority published a manifest on Facebook... https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1150622754973073&id=184913868210638&set=pcb.1150623831639632&source=48&refid=13 I keep getting edit conflicted out because I'm on mobile and things are moving along quickly. Mind helping integrate this into the article? Raymie (t • c) 08:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Raymie: I've had a look at this via my Facebook. The photos are of poor quality and the info is very hard to read. I'm also concerned that there may be a violation of WP:BLP, particularly in respect of those not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. On balance, I'd say we shouldn't include it. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I figured it might have been of interest. This is what happens when you can't sleep. I did see one thing that one of the journalists was a famous former player and coach working for Fox Sports. Raymie (t • c) 08:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I added the passangers list and you deleted it. Can I know why? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:4D9:24:E017:CD59:3D75:4BDF (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@2800:810:4D9:24:E017:CD59:3D75:4BDF: - Your edit, whilst made in good faith, fell foul of the policy on living people (which also applies to the recently deceased). In a nutshell, there is rarely a need to name people who are not notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. This issue has been discussed at talk:LaMia Airlines Flight 2933. I would encourage you to read the discussion there. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - Ok, I see. Just remember, as I followed up on the discussion page, that all players and manager are well known in South América and México due they were playing the final of a major South American football competition (Like Europa League).Besides this team were also playing the Brazilian cup finals, making them even more popular.

I don't know if you speak spanish or portuguese but you can check on every South American newspaper that not only the squad but also some of the journalists (FOX Sports) had a vast carreer and therefor should be also labales as "notable people". Thank you for your answer!

@2800:810:4D9:24:E017:CD59:3D75:4BDF: - I accept what you say about many of the people involve being notable in their field. Indeed, quite a few of them do have articles on the English Wikipedia. As for the rest, notability can be demonstrated by having an article on either the Portuguese or Spanish Wikipedias. It there are any such people, please post their names on the article's talk page, stating which language Wikipedia they have an article in. There is a way of linking to these articles which would allow their names to appear on the English Wikipedia article. I don't speak either language but Google Translate does a good enough job to enable me to at least understand a story if I need to run a source through it. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

balloon crash

pilot had taken drugs and weather was not clear, may be time to name the pilot if he was at fault Bachcell (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bachcell: Have replied at talk:2016 Lockhart hot air balloon crash, which is the better venue for this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Russian Defence Ministry Tupolev Tu-154 crash

Regarding this edit, the cited source says 93. Other sources I have looked at give 92 as the number of dead. The one that said 91 yesterday (Sky News) has been changed to 92.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Hmmm, ASN are pretty good at correcting errors so I'll let them know. Feel free to change the ref to any of the others that state 92. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Shoreham

Hi and thanks for your work. Can I ask, are you editorially interested in the field itself or just the crash? The only reason I ask is that I was a bit nonplussed by the latest contribution from a new editor here. It is by no means all bad - far from it - but does have some regrettable features. Simply reverting is perhaps not what is needed but unthreading the good bits (e.g. checking what is still referenced etc) looks a bit of a job - I'm not sure I'm up to it. What do you think? Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I'm interested in both the field and the accident, but am concentrating on the accident for now. Just finished reading the final report. Plenty to absorb and digest. The issue you raise, and the final report, are probably best discussed on the respective article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. I see that someone else is already helping with the airfield so I think I will stand down from that concern! Yes, much to take in in the final report. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

With the greatest respect to you, whose contributions to this article (to judge from the edit history) indicate a lot of hard work on your part, you have reverted a minor change I made on the basis the text I altered was (you say) a contemporary quote from a printed source. Wiki guidelines do indeed cater for verbatim quotes, saying they should go in quotation marks, while paraphrased text should accord with the tense of the surrounding paragraph. I changed the tense as there were no inverted commas to show quotes starting and stopping, so I presumed I was editing a paraphrase. I'm happy for the reversion to stand if quoted material could be marked; else, please undo the reversion. I've no problem with my edits being reverted per se but for consistency am simply proposing staying within Wikipedia's published style guide. Humboles (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Humboles: - I've added quote marks per your request. As you say, I've put in a lot of work. This should make an easy GA once the trial is over, and maybe even a FA after that. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk discussion

Take it here[9] That's the applicable WikiProject....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Graham Hill plane crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Graham Hill plane crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Hill plane crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tvx1 16:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Fire over Heathrow

Hello! I am very grateful to You for offering me help. If You have no objections, I think we can begin with setting common reference grid. What are the first pages of the chapters in Your copy of the book? In my E-copy (when viewed in the 'original format') they are as follows:

• Introduction - p. 49
• Chapter 1. Early Days - p. 51
• Chapter 2. The Birth of Whiskey Echo - p. 59
• Chapter 3. The Final Briefing - p. 67
• Chapter 4. The Last Flight of Whiskey Echo - p. 84
• Chapter 5. The Tragedy of Flight 712 - p. 103
• Chapter 6. The Evening News - p. 117
• Chapter 7. Headlines - p. 128
• Chapter 8. Replacements, Investigation and Reports - p. 139
• Chapter 9. A Lonely and Courageous Action - p. 160
• Chapter 10. Then and Now - p. 172
• The Legacy of Jane Harrison - p. 182

Yours faithfully, Эйхер (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Эйхер: The book pages are :-

• Introduction - p. xix
• Chapter 1. Early Days - p. 1
• Chapter 2. The Birth of Whiskey Echo - p. 10
• Chapter 3. The Final Briefing - p. 19
• Chapter 4. The Last Flight of Whiskey Echo - p. 40
• Chapter 5. The Tragedy of Flight 712 - p. 62
• Chapter 6. The Evening News - p. 78
• Chapter 7. Headlines - p. 92
• Chapter 8. Replacements, Investigation and Reports - p. 105
• Chapter 9. A Lonely and Courageous Action - p. 130
• Chapter 10. Then and Now - p. 145
• The Legacy of Jane Harrison - p. 157

Suggest you use these page numbers to reference the book, although I appreciate you are reading a digital copy. Might be worth you buying the book, should be available on Ebay, Amazon or similar sites. Good luck with the article. It's 50 years since the death of BJH on 8 April. Don't know it ru-Wiki has an on this day section, but would be nice to see it featured if it does. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

What I can't understand: why my E-copy have the same ISBN (ISBN 978-184415-7396)? Theoretically: "An ISBN is assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book. For example, an e-book, a paperback and a hardcover edition of the same book would each have a different ISBN.". Эйхер (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand it either, but it is what it is. Mjroots (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Well. I indeed will consider buying the hardcopy via Amazon, but, as an interim solution, substituting chapter numbers for page numbers in references (in the Russian version of the article), I believe, will suffice. Thank You very much for help! Эйхер (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 Algerian Air Force Il-76 crash

Regarding this edit, why did you think there were 30 casualties on the ground? Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Brian Everlasting: because the article stated "Additionally, thirty Saharawi civilians from the refugee camps in Tindouf were said to be among the dead.", per the Spanish language ref from RTVE. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2018 Ju-Air Junkers Ju 52 crash

On 7 August 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2018 Ju-Air Junkers Ju 52 crash, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

DHC-2 Beaver crash

On the same day: K2 Aviation de Havilland Beaver (DHC-2) crash. I've started a stub, perhaps you could do some c/e? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - I'm not convinced that this one is notable enough to sustain an article. It is an aircraft under 12,500lb MTOW and there don't seem to be any Wikinotable people involved (see the essay WP:AIRCRASH). Should you want to try to expand it, give it some structure and an infobox similar to the Ju 52 crash article. Plenty of sources linked from the Aviation Safety Network Wikibase item on the accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu disappearance

The article 2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu disappearance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability is not inherited, a plane with two people going missing is insufficiently notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Assistance

You wouldn’t mind helping me find a photo of the aircraft ET- AVJ? That’s the plane which went down today. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

OrbitalEnd48401 Your best bet is to find a decent photo on a site like airliners.net and persuade the photographer to release an image under a Wikipedia compatible licence. Other than that, maybe a trawl through Flickr will produce a useable image. Mjroots (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Are images on Flickr safe to use? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: - some of them are. You need to check the licence they are released under, although you can search by licence type. I'll be happy to give an opinion if you find one you think may be of use. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks man, I’ll give you the link if I find that Ethiopian plane. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: How about this? It says it’s safe? https://www.flickr.com/photos/namcys11/30970472157 OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that is marked © All Rights Reserved. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Flickr allows a number of different licenses; some are acceptable for Wikipedia; some are not. There's a summary table at c:Template:Flickr image info of what is and isn't allowed here. As an example of a Flickr image (not an aircraft) that is OK, see Rickmansworth - electric traction takes over. This shows " Public domain" just below the date (Taken on August 26, 1961). That license corresponds exactly with our {{cc-zero}} license tag on Commons. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Good news

New image of lion air 610 will be added soon! Got a reply back from the photographer, I got lion air 610 in the sky thankfully not on the ground so it’ll look ace, it was taken September 8th 2018. Any issues send me a message. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Using a video snapshot

I'd like to take a screenshot from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNFSY6_CZWI , but I am struggling regarding to copyright. It's for this page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosucre_Flight_4544

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Calabasas helicopter crash

Can you merge the histories of Calabasas helicopter crash and 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not something I know how to do. @MilborneOne: can you help? Mjroots (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash might want to restore that article its been improperly redirected and full protewcted again, if anything Death of Kobe Bryant should be merged into that article not the other way around. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Valoem: I fully agree, but I can't take any action per WP:WHEELWAR. All we can do is discuss the issue with the admin in question and at article talk pages. Mjroots (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead and unprotect it, this is time sensitive I've noticed current and treading articles are mostly likely to be expanded. The full protection is unnecessary as there have been no edit wars which violated policy. Given the message I left on Zzyxz's talk page its unlikely he will contest this as this crash is notable even if Kobe was not involved, I'll take full responsibility if Z claims wheel warring, I doubt he would go down that path as we are all being civil. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Valoem: it doesn't work like that. They are my tools and it will be my arse at WP:ARBCOM if I were to unprotect the article. As I said last night, all we can do is discuss the issue. Sometimes we need to accept we are not going to win an argument and move on. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Just ignore that it was left hours ago before actual edit warring started, that no longer applies as discussion is opened now and he has contested. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pakistan International Airlines Flight 3803

A tag has been placed on Pakistan International Airlines Flight 3803 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Page that held the contents of Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 but has an incorrect name, and is currently a redirect.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 13:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Air crash notability - FedEx Express Flight 1478

Hello! I was worried to see your health notice at the top and I do hope that you are doing OK.

I was interested to see FedEx Express Flight 1478 proposed for deletion. I was watching it for some now-forgotten historical reason. It's a serious but non-fatal 727 freighter crash resulting in what looks like it must have been a hull loss. Is there a stated bar for crash notability? I don't have a dog in this non-fight – I'm just interested, and would love to know what you think and/or what the rules say. Thanks and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Seems notable enough to me. Suggest a de-prod and invitation to take to AfD is in order. It it is to be deleted, then let's get consensus rather than the opinion of one editor. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the helpful reply. It's already been done by Ahunt so I think I will watch to see if it ends up at AfD. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It's been sent there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FedEx Express Flight 1478 - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ahunt. I might go and have a look. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Air crash notability criteria

Hi there. Sorry to bother you with this but I was looking at Avro Anson and wondering about adding a crash (write-off, all 4 crew died). But when I looked at the code I saw Most military accidents and incidents are non-notable and realized that not only might my putative contribution be non-notable, but so also might be some or all of the losses currently listed there. I imagine that actually many of this type were lost ... so what's notable?? Could you please advise me where to read up on this? I am sure it's obvious if I knew where to look, but tbh it might be a lot more efficient to ask you! Apologies and thanks DBaK (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Not quite sure what you mean, but the accidents are notable enough to be listed at the aircraft article. The one that has a stand-alone article is due to the extremely unusual circumstances giving it notability. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was unclear. Let me have another try.

I was planning to add another accident, not dissimilar to those already listed in the article. (An Anson on some kind of navy-cooperation exercise hit a hill above Guisborough in 1937.)

When I started editing it, the page code showed me the HTML comment that says Most military accidents and incidents are non-notable which I assumed had been put there to discourage people like me from adding stuff like that! :)

So I worried that maybe I should not add it. In particular, I worried/wondered:

(a) is the HTML note right? If I look at say the Spitfire or Lancaster articles, for example, they don't list the many many accidents these types must have had – like there were >30 Spitfires lost even before the outbreak of war etc, but we don't list every new PO who crashed on exercise. And yes I know it's Other Stuff, but it did give me pause;

(b) is there some agreed set of criteria for the notability of accidents/incidents like this? That is, I could sit down with it and compare the Guisborough one with what we say is notable, look at the others, figure it out from there.

Now, I fear I might be in danger of becoming a drag to you with this so please please feel free to answer as briefly as you like and/or tell me where to get off! It's not going to set the Thames on fire and no-one will die if I do or don't edit the Anson article further. I'd kind of vaguely like to have a go but life is too short to obsess over this stuff so please no stress from me!

Thanks and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I guess you've seen this at geograph.org.uk? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: – Thanks Martin, yes, great pic! Just a degree or two further W and I would be able to see my childhood home in it. DBaK (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: With four killed and other entries on the list having fewer deaths, I'd say be bold and add it. If you get reverted then invoke WP:BRD at talk. Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, then, given all you've said, I will have a try sometime. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to rename Dominicana DC-9 air disaster to Dominicana Flight 603

Further information: Dominicana DC-9 air disaster

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reason being that baaa-acro.com have clearly mentioned the flight number as DO603. https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-douglas-dc-9-32-santo-domingo-102-killed

It is also mentioned by wikipedia here to prove that it is a relible source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents#Bureau_of_Aircraft_Accidents_Archives_(B3A)

It is standard proceedure to rename a page if the flight number is known @Username006: Username006 (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Username006: - I've seen your comment at talk. Given that there is some dispute over the flight number, I'd really prefer to see a contemporary source for the flight number. If you can show me that, then I'll move the article. Other than that, file a WP:RM and let the discussion play out. If you do file a RM, I won't be participating. Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay Username006 (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

About baa-acro.com, their archive pages seem to have been created recently. Why do I say that? The wayback machine aka archive.org only has snapshots from 2020 for accident pages. I wrote fiction for free on the internet at a website beginning in 2000 but archive.org has snapshots of that website from back then and older.

bas-acro.com could be mimicking other websites that say the flight number is 603. That very issue has been raised in the discussions concerning this accident. On a extra note- I have access to the Washingtonpost.com archive. There is nothing at all there on this accident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: have you tried any of the other available newspaper sources at WP:SHIPS/R? Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ships/R (BTW I don't do much ship editing so I was unfamilar with this before today) provides a ton of links but I honestly don't know where to start....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: - section 3, Newspaper sources Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I tried those newspapers that covered 1970 and got nothing. Note- I checked Aviation Disasters by David Gero, a book I own. No flight number for the crash is mentioned. FWIW, plane crashes, even major ones, that place in the 3rd world say 40 to 50 years ago can be very difficult to find contemporary news articles on. I say this even if Google News archive was still fully functional. Take for instance Agadir air disaster, Kano air disaster, and Viasa Flight 742. The last two were the worst aviation crashes ever at the time they occurred. News articles on all three are next to nill and I did all three of those articles when Google News Archive was working....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Caribbean for assistance in sourcing contemporary newspapers from the Dominican Republic. Sources are likely to be in Spanish if they exist, but that is not an insurmountable problem. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is a spanish article also stating that the flight number is 603. http://imullix.blogspot.com/2019/02/el-accidente-del-dc-9-32-de-dominicana.html @Username006: Username006 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Username006: whilst supporting your claim, that source fails WP:RS. I'm not unsympathetic to your wish to move the article. As you can see above, I am trying to help find a useable source to back the flight number. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've found another source in Portugese http://desastresaereosnews.blogspot.com/2021/02/aconteceu-em-15-de-fevereiro-de-1970.html @Username006: Username006 (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I just looked up ASN and they too mention the flight number as 603. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700215-0 Username006 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC) @Username006:

@WilliamJE: - ASN is a reliable source, what do you think? Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

MJR, the curious thing. ASN's database (according to the wayback machine) still had no flight number as of last March 4[10] or later. I swear there was no flight number when I checked there early today. One way or another it is a recent change. I'll defer to you and won't do anything if you decide to change the article. FYI User, blogspot fails WP:SPS. It should never be used as a source....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought it strange as it had no flight number when I looked earlier today, somebody copying wikipedia ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't find the article when I looked (added - because I looked in the wrong place). Am still minded to say that we really need a contemporary (pre-internet) source. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree and note the ASN page code says it was updated today <div class="lastupdated">Last updated: 1 June 2021</div> MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Also I'm glad to hear I wasn't seeing things this morning....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case then obviously has to be verified by someone. You simply can't add information to the report without referring it to a reliable source and that is the main reason why at the very top of the report there is a status report stating that if its final, it means that all the information that needs to be added to the report is been verified and added and no other information can be added. However, if it doesn't state that it is final, that means information may be missing and can be added at a later date. This is exactly what happened here Also, if you cannot agree to move the page, even after showing reliable sources and every other source I can think of my head. You are being unfair and unjust @Username006: Username006 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The ASN entry only lists David Gero's book "Air Disasters" as a source. The accident is covered on p92 of Aviation Disasters by David Gero, and no flight number is given. Have emailed ASN asking for their source. Mjroots (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

But as you said earlier, Aviation Disasters is not a reliable source. Also, I think we should shift this discussion over to the article talk page instead of here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username006 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, discussion copied over to the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Piper PA-46 crash

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Must disagree with your reverting of my edits. '13 nautical miles' gives a perfectly good idea of the distance; anybody wanting a more precise measurement can be sure of finding it in the main article. And mentioning the AAIB does not alter the perception of the inquiry; it would obviously have been conducted by the official body, which - again - would be detailed in the article. The lede is meant to summarise the topic in the shortest number of words. Valetude (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valetude: It was an undo, not a revert, as you made the edit in good faith. Per BRD, we are at the D part. It's probably better to bring this up at the article's talk page and get some input from other editors. Am happy to go with whatever consensus emerges, it may be that your edit gets reinstated. BTW, please leave an edit summary, a lack of one can be an attempt to conceal non-constructive editing (it wasn't in this case), which means that some editors pay more attention to edits without an edit summary. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A source, a user and some edits

Hi Mjroots! I am sorry to bother you but aviation safety and its sourcing is waaaay outside my comfort zone (which is already very very small, and shrinking by the day) and I would be most grateful for your having a quick look at a couple of things. If you inspect the very recent edit history of the fine town of Amble you will see a newish user, 78NewX, adding an aircraft crash, and me attempting to tidy up a bit. Matters arising might include (a) whether the Aviation-Safety Net wiki is an RS – reading its blurb I would say I cannot see how it can be, but what do I know? – and (b) whether the several changes that 78NewX has recently made to other articles are OK. They might be – I wouldn't know, but it seems to be about a new crash category ("Aviation accidents and incidents locations in England") then changing some existing articles – for example Wisbech or Holmpton – to point to it instead of a previous cat with a similar name. Or something. OK yes I am confused, and it might all just be fine! But I would be hugely grateful if you could please take a quick look. Thanks, and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: - aircraft crashes can be worthy of inclusion in location articles - e.g. Marden, Kent#Notable events, although in that case there is also a stand alone article. As for the Wikibase, as an occasional contributor myself, I can report that there is editorial oversight of entries, and sourcing is a requirement. Useable, but other sources should be available and should be used where possible methinks. As for categorisation, aircraft accident categories are for aircraft accident articles. Haven't looked at other contributions by 78NewX yet. Mjroots (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Having taken a look at contribs, I'd say they are made in good faith. The Category:Aviation accidents and incidents locations in England might be best discussed at WP:CFD. Mjroots (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for looking. I am reassured, and most grateful. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged. On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue. Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion. The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7. The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed. The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125. The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members New Members KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December) PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December) Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December) Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921. Closed Discussions Featured Article assessment Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Good Article assessment HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021 William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021 Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021 Deletion Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021 Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021 Requested moves Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021	Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY. Aviation pages by quality Quality Total FA 142 FL 15 A 56 GA 505 B 4,573 C 11,878 Start 15,082 Stub 18,754 List 2,539 Category 11,638 Disambig 653 File 2,713 Portal 629 Project 89 Redirect 1,518 Template 2,489 NA 66 Assessed 73,339 Unassessed 1 Total 73,340 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 250,771 Ω = 4.93
New/Ongoing Discussions Featured Article review D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021 A-class Article assessment Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020 List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010 Good Article assessment Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021 Merger proposals List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021 Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021 Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021 ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021 Splitting proposals Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021 2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021 List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021 Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019 Deletion List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021 Requested moves Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021 Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Did you know Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021 Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021 On The Main Page Did you know... ... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list. Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)