Saudia Flight 163Edit

I was actually cleaning up the text, but it wasn't finished. I do have a community draft of it though: Draft:Saudia Flight 163. The lawsuit part was rescued from older versions. I apologize for things going wrong. Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, by all means continue working in the Draft space or in your sandbox; we don't want to publish half-baked articles that would confuse readers and put them off.
However, I have to question again the wisdom of expanding articles by translating from Wikis in completely unrelated languages. In this case, the events occurred in an Arabic- and English-speaking country, and the most relevant sources are likely written in those two languages. The article in the Finnish Wikipedia that you translated is likely based on those same sources; therefore, instead of translating the Finnish article, why not just take directly the original sources, and maybe attempt to translate straight from Arabic? Going through Finnish, Russian or whatever language happens to have a longish Wikipedia article on Saudia Flight 163 simply increases the risk of information becoming distorted in each successive translation. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

About editing the Wow! signal articleEdit

Hi, thanks for your edit. Yes, indeed I have to wait before reaching consensus in the talkpage, the problem is that the other part does not participate in the talkpage, the user just keeps reverting edits without agreement. I have asked for semi-protection of the article, as one editor is accusing me of socketpuppetry without any proof and I'm actually changing something that is totally wrong in the article, for which I show several sources that prove it. I will wait for that user some time more, but not for eternity. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Several aviaton accidentsEdit

Sorry, I just want to give people a background rather than just jump right in. I should have looked at the complexity of the investigation first. I did however do some edits that did meet the style guide. 1. The "victims" section of Adam Air Flight 174 was at the very bottom, so I moved it to right after the "flight chronology" section, before the "search and recovery section. 2. Also, Emery Worldwide Flight 17 had no "aftermath" section, so I added one. However, there was some rearrangement involved due to the creation of said "aftermath" section.

Once again, I apologize for messing up. And if what I listed above looks messed up, then I apologize in advance about them as well. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tigerdude9: what you say doesn't make sense to me: why on earth adding an Aftermath section would warrant the rearranging of the Aircraft or Passengers sections? and why would the complexity of the investigation do the same?
In order to judge what to put before the Accident section, you should look at the complexity of the background, not that of the aftermath or investigation. A complex background such as that of the Tenerife disaster does warrant a sizeable section, before discussing the accident in detail, and as part of the background we will also introduce the aircraft and its occupants. However, in most articles (Emery Worldwide Flight 17 is one of them), the Aircraft and the Passengers/Crew sections contain mainly a lot of nerdy details about the plane involved or generic information about its occupants that have little or no bearing on the accident itself, so there is no good reason to give them the top spot.
The bottom line is that these articles are about air accidents, therefore the most relevant section is the one discussing the accident. We shouldn't make the reader wade through stuff like aircraft serial numbers, previous owners, first officer's total flight time etc. just to get to the main point of the article. Therefore, before deviating from WP:AVILAYOUT-ACC, ask yourself: do all the details about the aircraft and crew have a real bearing on what happened in the accident? Does the reader need to know all this stuff, in order to understand the Accident section? If the answer is no, then stick to WP:AVILAYOUT-ACC. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Deeday-UK: Well no, usually. They don't need to know all of this stuff (unless it's a complex investigation and/or the article is good or featured. I just felt that it feels more appropriate to give a background first so the stage can be set. For me, jumping into an accident is too abrupt. I feel that this flows easier for other readers (not all other readers though). Anyways, I have reverted these edits of Emery Worldwide Flight 17 after reading your response. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

RE: Date of photoEdit

I’m sorry you’re appearing to have ago at me for adding dates on when the photo was taken? When there are plenty of other accidents that are just like that. So if you think it is wrong to have the dates on the caption why don’t you remove it from the I don’t know maybe 40+ accidents that have the same layout. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Having the dates on when the photo was taken I see is important especially for everyday view sets that see these kind of accidents, especially when viewers are interested in when it was taken, where it was taken, I feel like the info should be right there in the caption. Removing the exact date means it could’ve been taken from the 1st of that month or the 30th. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I wasn't having a go at you in particular; just at the date in the caption. And yes, I will remove pointless dates from captions when I see them. Consider the following: if we had a photo of the accident aircraft taken by chance just a few days before the crash, then the circumstance that the photo is so recent and close to the event would be somehow relevant to the reader; therefore, putting in the caption the full date the photo was taken would be justified.
However, if the most recent picture we have is from two years before the crash, then what does it matter to the reader that the picture was taken on June 17th or October 31st or whatever? It only matters that the photo is two years old, therefore just put the year in the caption. If the photo is around one month old, like the one you uploaded, then the month and year would be appropriate, as you did (by the way, that photo is copyrighted, so prepare to see it removed). --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I already know, its the fact I didnt use the template on permission to use said image. I have permission but it wasn't done correctly. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean to you the date is unimportant but what about if people are making videos about the accident or something along the lines, wouldn’t providing a date of the photo of the aircraft be important? I don’t understand why you think it’s unnecessary to not include the date, not to be rude bu I don’t think your thinking outside the box, using the ‘what if’ query my IT teacher taught. I don’t mean to be a paint with my messages but there’s more then you and myself using this. I just feel like all the information is there for everyone to see you know. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You think the full date a photo was taken should be added to all captions? what about the make of the camera, focal length, aperture, shutter speed, level of jpeg compression, co-ordinates of the camera at the time of the shot? The full date is just as irrelevant (bar a few cases) as all those minutiae. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, you know. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Only the date of when it was taken so you know when exactly the plane was seen / spotted. Why why would you not have the date? For all you know people would assume and say oh the plane must of been repaired, why would you be reliable about sourcing but not with photographs? (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


Oh I’m so sorry about that. What you’d like me to edit war with them about that? I added that Column to a lot and I mean a lot of accidents, only to get crap saying oh you’re making bad edits etc. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You won't last long on Wikipedia, if you think in terms of edit warring. Why don't you just think for yourself, instead of blindly doing what random editors tell you to do, as if you were obeying orders? When it comes to plane crash infoboxes, all the guidelines and usage notes are at {{Infobox aircraft occurrence}}. As you can see, it says nothing about omitting the occupants= parameter when survivors is 0 or whatever. Of course the matter is open for discussion, but until a discussion is held and the guidelines are changed, then removing that parameter is totally unwarranted. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasnt removing it because I thought it was wrong, I was for it to be added to accidents. Now that I be assured I can redo the edits in which I removed them. Now i can finally add them back! And no I do not want to edit war. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Then why don't you add wreckage of Atlas Air 3591 on the main infobox then? There are photos of it's wreckage on commons? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to the photos currently on Commons, those are rather pictures of investigators examining debris, rather than pictures of the accident or crash site, but if a more suitable image becomes available then it could well go to the top. On a different subject, in your pursuit to add 'pilot error' to every possible infobox on the planet, can you please at least ensure that it is properly capitalized? — [[pilot error]] and not [[Pilot error]] — It's a waste of other editors' time having to clean up all this untidiness. --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, note taken thanks. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean capitalised at the start of the summary or throughout? Sam has a go at me for my capitalisation of each cause. I’m confused now... OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean: capitalise according to grammar; that is always put a capital letter at the start of the sentence (or start of the summary), and never put a capital letter after a semicolon. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Me being ‘disruptive’Edit

Now I’m about to right a paragraph here so I’d rather warn you about this.

You all dislike the way I edit on Wikipedia, when it comes to the way I’ve done summaries, dates and rewording stuff. Look I do not ignore you, I see some now I say some of the advice you give me is were I disagree, I always stood by reliability, I always have, yes I keep summaries short and I tend to try and make them in order whenever possible, but I’d like to open a discussion about my recommendations as I feel like A) the wording of some stuff does not sound right when you say it out loud. B) the way captions are done on images, I think they should be done as: registration, aircraft involved / similar and then month and year. C) summaries should not be very vague saying Crahsed on landing for example. It doesn’t state why it happened or what caused it. As with just about every accident you have a reason on what caused said accident. I love being here don’t get me wrong, but I was a huge user before I joined as my courses at college relied on your references and info. And countless times there are things that are worded correctly, I find this frustrating as yes it should be in clear English, but there are the same pages made in a different language. Look my autism is not making a mess, as I am very observant when something is out of order, why don’t I voice my opinion on the talk page? Because all I get is it’s always be like that and I would like to hold some kind of big discussion, it might seem impossible but I can’t keep my mind off some the things that sound incorrect. Please understand I am not here to be a pain or make you all think I’m taking the crap. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Pass. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Rly? Well thanks then. I was explaining why I was doing what I was doing. Well I'll copy this and send it to sam then (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Deeday-UK: Hello, I would like your help on the talk page of Aeroméxico Conmect 2431, there is a contributior trying to turn the summary into a sentence and I’ve told him the summary should not include all the causes. Could you help by any chance? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

RE: Talk pageEdit

Now if you are gonna ignore me again, remember this is on your talk page so no excusses.

I read the stuff on there, and you expect me to make that change if all you are doing is touching my talk page, annoying m by doing that when I have a possible IP breach on my mobile phone, and the fact that you dont see me touching your talk page. So please just stop. Seriously, telling me to grow some balls is pathetic, we all have good days and bad days, and today hasnt been good for me, so please with all due respect leave my talk page as is. We each have our own talk page to do whatever we want with (as long as its not rule breaking). Okay? Thank you. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't been a good day for you? then please do yourself and us a favour: take a break from editing WP and come back on a better day. This is not helping you (because Wikipedia is not therapy) and is not helping the project. As Garretka said, carelessly leaving a trail of typos and errors is not OK; it wastes a lot of other editors' time, who have to clean up what you couldn't care to do right.
To be brutally honest, most of your edits are only marginally constructive (such as tweaking captions or accident summaries that are basically already fine); a few edits of yours do add value to the encyclopedia (e.g. adding the number of occupants – when you get the number right, 'cos you even got that wrong once), but if for each such edit there are three others that require fixing by other editors, then your net contribution to the project becomes negative, and sooner or later you'll just get kicked out (by the way, do read the therapy link above). --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I won’t be kicked trust me. I didn’t click on the theropy link because for starters I know the definition of theropy. And I ain’t using this as theropy. Secondly everyone makes small mistakes and if you need me to critisie you I’ll do that. Serisouly you ain’t helping me. The fact thag now you reply to a comment of mine when you blatantly couldn’t be bothered to read my last message I sent you makes me not even want to bother to write this whole response up. I can’t be bothered to write this anymore. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501Edit

What you said is true, however the reason I added American Airlines Flight 587 is because the article on the rudder travel limiter brought up both of these accidents. Plus a structural failure and a high altitude stall both can lead to loss of control, though it is possible to regain control. I also saw in the revision history that Flight 8501 used to be in the "see also" section of American Airlines Flight 587, but you removed it for the same reason. Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, the AA Flight 587 article does not mention the rudder travel limiter (RTL), only the rudder control system in general. Secondly, the RTL was only indirectly implicated in the crash of Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 as the problem that set in motion the chain of events. Had the captain avoided fooling around with circuit breakers, they would have never lost control. Therefore, the connection between the two accidents based on the RTL is tenuous at best. Readers will wonder why on earth they were suggested to See also the AA 587 article, after reading about QZ 8501.
Please keep the See also entries to a minimum, adding only accidents that have evident similarities or are otherwise closely related, otherwise there are dozens of other crashes that we could list, based on the sort of vague connection you suggest. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

First Air Flight 6560Edit

First of all, the unused parameters were not added by me, they were always there. Second, the call sign is in the article on the airline. Third, reports never explicitly say "The [investigation agency] determines that the probable cause of this accident was pilot error for [reasons]." Here's several excerpts from the report confirming pilot error: 1. "The late initiation and subsequent management of the descent resulted in the aircraft turning onto final approach 600 feet above the glideslope, increasing the crew's workload and reducing their capacity to assess and resolve the navigational issues during the remainder of the approach." The crew initiated the descent late and improperly carried out the descent, aggravating the situation further.

8. "The crew's attention was devoted to solving the navigational problem, which delayed the configuration of the aircraft for landing. This problem solving was an additional task, not normally associated with this critical phase of flight, which escalated the workload." The crew should have been focusing on the aircraft's configuration.

9. "The first officer indicated to the captain that they had full localizer deflection. In the absence of standard phraseology applicable to his current situation, he had to improvise the go-around suggestion. Although full deflection is an undesired aircraft state requiring a go-around, the captain continued the approach." The captain did not initiate go around when they should have.

10. "The crew did not maintain a shared situational awareness. As the approach continued, the pilots did not effectively communicate their respective perception, understanding, and future projection of the aircraft state." Poor crew coordination, as explained in the articles introduction.

17. "The crew's crew resource management was ineffective. First Air's initial and recurrent crew resource management training did not provide the crew with sufficient practical strategies to assist with decision making and problem solving, communication, and workload management. The crew did not use CRM.

Thus, pilot error was a cause of this accident, so the summary should say "Controlled flight into terrain due to navigation error and pilot error [or the other way around]" I know I need to think more carefully, but at the same time you should think more carefully. Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Tigerdude, take a deep breath and have another look at your edit. The parameters stopover= stopover0= last_stopover= missing= were not there before and were introduced by your edit. You may have done it inadvertently (another user reported similar spurious additions to the infobox while editing from their mobile phone), but it is still your responsibility not to leave all that garbage behind.
Are you saying you took the callsign from the First Air article? How do you know that FIRST AIR 6560 was the callsign used during the accident flight? They might have been using a temporary one, or ATC might have assigned them a different one. Without a RS stating so, your edit is a guess, so it's best to leave the field empty for now (also because it's far from essential to the article in question).
The final report lists 18 findings, of which you quoted 5, and yet you think you can summarize all of that in just two words, pilot error; that's a textbook example of WP:SYNTHESIS. 'Pilot error' is a non-neutral expression, which puts significant emphasis on the individuals involved, and we should only use it if we have reliable sources that mention it explicitly. Look at the cover page of the report: it summarizes the occurrence simply as 'CONTROLLED FLIGHT INTO TERRAIN'; 'pilot error' is never used in any of the 200+ pages.
Right, another half an hour gone... --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Same for me... Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Following the First Air revision I'm going to firm: articles are not under ICAO annex 13. Yes reports never explicitly state "pilot error" but they they still state it altogether by using "the flight crew's failure" and "the flight crew did not do [an action] appropriately". As for the cultural impact, I suggest you check pages 75-91 and 127-137. As for the call sign stuff, that should be stated in the "infobox aircraft occurrence template" It doesn't matter how big or small the error was; it's still pilot error altogether, and should be noted. Tigerdude9 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Tigerdude9, you don't seem to get WP:SYNTHESIS, despite what I wrote above almost a year ago. Let's try with a table:
If the source says You could write e.g.
"the flight crew's failure to do such and such" "the flight crew failed to do such and such"
"the flight crew did not do such and such appropriately" "the flight crew failed to do such and such appropriately"
As you can see, both possibilities are too long to fit in the infobox, and what you cannot do is to synthesise as you feel appropriate into two non-neutral words such as 'pilot error'. Therefore, please use the Summary field only to answer the question 'what happened?' without trying to cram as much information as possible about the causes. The causes of an accident, especially those related to human factors, are often many and complex so they are best left for the article body.
By the way, this is an example of accident report that explicitly cites 'pilot error' as the cause of the crash, and so can we on Wikipedia. Otherwise keep your own simplifications to yourself. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
And with regard to the callsign, I don't care that you know how callsigns are composed based on airline name and flight number. Unless you can find a source that explicitly mentions the callsign during the accident flight, then don't put the callsign in the article. How do you know on that flight they were using the standard callsign or a different one, maybe a temporary one assigned to them by ATC due to some particular circumstances? --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: American Airlines Flight 331Edit

I undid your revert of my edit to "See Also" in American Airlines Flight 331 simply because your notes made no sense. That, precisely, is why is is proper procedure to discuss before reverting. If you had the grace to discuss first, I might have understood what you were trying to say. However, as hard as I tried to understand what you were trying to say, the language failed. Therefore I'm requesting that you do the proper thing and discuss whatever it was that was bothering you about my edit. Then perhaps we can agree on how to say something useful. After all, the section was only a "See Also" section of related structural failures, it was not an analysis of flight procedures or approaches/landings. It was simply a "See Also" on how the fuselage broke apart upon impact. I look forward to hearing from you either on the AA Flight 331 Talk Page, or my own Talk Page, as you like. But do let me know. Cheers! Santamoly (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  1. Please familiarise yourself with WP:BRD: you made a bold edit; I reverted it giving a reason. The 'proper thing' for you to do should have been to open a discussion without reverting.
  2. If you can't understand my edit summary, I would suggest you refrain from editing aviation safety-related articles until you are more familiar with the subject, or ask for clarifications before making further changes.
  3. Unlike me, you never left any edit summary. Now the onus is on you to explain why you think those links should be included. "It's only a "See Also" section of related structural failures" doesn't make much sense. The structural failure wasn't a cause in those crashes; it was the result, and it's not uncommon for all sorts of aircraft, not just the 737, to break apart after running off the runway or hitting the ground in the undershoot. Does it mean they are all related? I don't think so.
Waiting for the explanation... --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
No problem, I'm pleased that you are approaching this in a gentlemanly manner. The American Airlines Flight 331 accident was typical of several other B737-NG prangs, most with similar outcomes. Most engineers involved in aviation safety are familiar with this phenomenon. An accident such as this one need not lead to only one conclusion, as you appear to be suggesting. There's the pilot error aspect, the safety aspect, the AWD aspect, and the maintenance quality aspect. All could be involved in such an accident. As you appear to be unfamiliar with structural integrity issues, allow me to point out that the AA Flight 331 accident showed that the fuselage fractured at the join points where the nose, the cabin, and the tail were joined during assembly. The point of failure was the fuselage end chords which were not supposed to fail. They failed because they weren't manufactured to the design specification. In fact, they were supposed to be CNC milled from titanium to a precise spec, but they were hand-cut from aluminum by a sub-contractor to save money. The Boeing inspectora who spotted the quality error were subsequently fired, and then the planes started breaking-up on impact. They're not supposed to come apart like this. As an aviation safety enthusiast, you should be looking always at the bigger picture. About 300 737-NGs were assembled with the defective parts, and they started coming apart after about 8 years in service. In most cases, the resulting mess was credited to "pilot error". I'm pleased to be able to offer enlightenment, and I hope that I'm doing so in a helpful and respectful manner. Santamoly (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
You must have been watching that 2010 Al Jazeera documentary about the 737NG, or maybe you didn't even go beyond the cut-down version some random user posted on YouTube. It's not such a big story, nothing like the current 737 MAX debacle. Those ex-employees sued Boeing for defrauding the US government (not even for endangering the safety of an aircraft) and lost; then they appealed and lost again. In the meantime, in the intervening 20-odd years and millions of flight hours, no 737 NG has suffered any in-flight structural failure, as the ex-employees feared (only two cases involving 737 Classic), while other non-Boeing aircraft have equally broken up in three sections, following crash-landings or runway overruns (such as this MD-83 in Sweden), and some 737NGs even went down cliffs without breaking up at all.
Therefore no, there is no proven link among those three accidents other than in WP:FRINGE theories, and linking them through the See also section is unwarranted. Unless of course you can enlighten me by providing some reliable sources beyond the Al Jazeera documentary, such as an official accident report that mentions manufacturing defects as the cause of those structural failures. --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It appears that you're being a bit harsh in your rush to judgment. Could we discuss this in a more civil manner? It's difficult to discuss technical matter on the basis of inferred conclusions before reaching any conclusion. You might want to read the Washington Post summary of the early investigations: before rushing to condemn. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) website has some useful information: Here is a useful link to the actual FAA SDR's (Service Difficulty Reports) for aircraft types: If you type in the info, you will receive the SDRs for a specific aircraft type, in this case the Boeing 737990-NG. This your best source for actual part failures. In our discussion we are focused on the failure of fuselage assembly parts known as "chords". If this appears to be an overwhelming task, you could skip to the investigation by UK journalist Tim Tate who produced an excellent investigation for alJazzera. I'm not sure if the fact that a credible ITV investigation was aired on alJazzera makes it into a disreputable source or not. We'll have to continue the discussion on that sub-topic in a later exchange. Please read the above sources thoroughly, and then post your comments. I look forward to hearing from you as we progress through this mountain of information (if you like, I can post the entire B737990-NG SDR download for your reading enjoyment, it's only 34 pages). Please don't lose sight of the edit that we're discussing: a simple "See Also" link to another WP article which is related to a similar Service Difficulty. While I admire the energy you're devoting to deprecating this simple link, it's quite likely we're using up a lot of creative energy that could be devoted to more productive pursuits. Let me know when you've worked your way through all the above bumph. Cheers! Santamoly (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it's the other way round: you have to prove the three accidents are linked, and related to the manufacturing issues, not me, otherwise the links in the See also section will go. Of the sources you just referenced:

  • The Washington Post's article is from 2006; the three crashes are from 2009/2010. Obviously that source cannot say anything about those accidents. You said yourself the article is about the early investigation; we are more interested in the conclusions, rather than the early assumptions.
  • The POGO article simply raises the question of whether the 737 NG is liable to the same failure mode of the fuselage skin that affected the 737 Classic. The three accidents in question are not even mentioned.
  • You can dig out all the SDRs you want, but until you come up with something reliable linking explicitly those three specific occurrences to the problems reported in the SDRs, that is a pointless exercise. The alleged link made in the Al Jazeera doc is essentially speculation. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It's actually not proper for you to impose your own opinions in an objective article in this manner. These were good-faith edits relating to the article. And your suggestion that the ITV investigation is a work of alJazzera is out of order. Your facts don't line up as they should. It may be that you're unfamiliar with aircraft in general, and structures in particular. Regardless, since the links are simply included in the "See Also" heading for related information, it's not necessary to find "something reliable linking explicitly those three specific occurrences" as you are demanding. The links offer information on the related structural failures which followed the hard landings under discussion. It's simply presumptuous to suggest they are something unrelated. I think it would be preferable to avoid getting into a snit over these event-related facts, and try to see their usefulness to students of the topic. That's what Wikipedia does best. Above all, you also need to learn some manners relating to good-faith edits. Those who are unable to respect other editors, with all due respect, end up losing the respect of the community. Santamoly (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

About yesterdayEdit

Uh I would like to apologize about yesterday (if there if anything worth apologizing). Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Just make sure in future not to edit infoboxes from the mobile app, to avoid those weird additions of empty parameters. It's probably a bug. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Variable-buoyancy propulsion listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Variable-buoyancy propulsion. Since you had some involvement with the Variable-buoyancy propulsion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 17:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviation accident layout in the U.S.Edit

I know that the aircraft passengers and crew are supposed to come after the accident, but for US accidents I've usually seen them come first. Is having them com first in US accidents and exception. I brought this up because of your revert to UPS Airlines Flight 1354. Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't see why air accidents in the US should be treated any differently from air accidents in any other part of the world. If you see many articles with sections laid out in the wrong order is because WP:AVILAYOUT-ACC has not been strictly enforced, something I'm currently working on. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah. That makes sense. It's just difficult to understand as we both have different views. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

About the infoboxesEdit

That stuff generates itself. Even when I click on the trash can icon and delete it, it re-appears. Also I removed the spacing because it looked redundant. I know it didn't have anything to do visually but yeah. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you editing with the VisualEditor? Then please switch to plain wikitext whenever you intend to edit infoboxes. You can't blame the tool; avoiding leaving that garbage behind is very easy, and we all have a duty to leave the place in order. As for the spacing, some editors (including me), prefer to have the fields all neatly aligned, for what it matters. It's true that the blank master template does not have the fields aligned, but that's not a good reason to remove the alignment from those infoboxes that have it; it could be argued that uniform alignment makes the wikitext more readable. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes I am editing with the visual editor (when I’m on my computer that is) as it’s easier. I only use wiki text on my phone or when I can’t edit something via the visual editor, but if you want me to do source editing on the info box, I’ll do it. Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The Day the Music DiedEdit

Hi! Nice to meet you ~ just want to let you know I restored the version before your edit~ You linked everything back to a dead link ~ also you took quote marks off a quoted statement ~ if you want to talk about this ~ please use my talk page or the articles talk page and I'll be glad to work with you on getting an edit we both agree on ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Deeday good morning again ~ this is what was there before I started working on the article ~ Here ~mitch~ (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
~ and this is what was also archived ~ here ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
See my comments on Talk. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help ~ by the way I quoted the full sentence used from the report ~ copyrights ~ thanks again nice meeting you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

UPS Airlines Flight 1354Edit

Hi Deeday ~ sorry it is probable later in the evening for you ~ no rush on you thoughts of this ~ but when I left a message on @Tigerdude9:'s talk page I was thinking of this WP:MOS/Topic ~ of course, if I would have seen (WP:AVILAYOUT-ACC) instead of skipping through your response to him ~ I would not have made the edit on tiger's page ~ I was not trying to go around your advise ~ have a good evening ~mitch~ (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, have a good evening too. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Pilot errorEdit

Was I too honest with what I said back there? If I was then, I apologize. Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for. I was going to add to that discussion later. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you startedEdit

Thanks for creating Buoyancy engine.

User:Doomsdayer520 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for your new article on the Buoyancy engine.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Azza Transport Flight 2241Edit

Azza Transport Flight 2241 @Deeday-UK: Hi friend, I found another error, if you look at ASN here: it mentions sudan airlines. (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you OrbitalEnd48401, by any chance? --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi friend, no I don't have account on wikipedia. I come to english wikipedia as it better then korean version. I come from here, I english speaking south korean. (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Deeday-UK Can we sort this airline article out please? The title is wrong. (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Atlas Air Flight 3591Edit

I was the person who uploaded the image of the CVR. Also, the crash occurred on my 18th birthday. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

And your point is? --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I liked having that image, though I do understand it's an overkill. I do want to express that this incident hung like a cloud over me because it occurred on my birthday and I like aviation. I usually don't express my feeling on Wikipedia, but I felt like there was a reason to. I don't know the reason itself. Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
If you want my tip, I tend to leave my emotions out of Wikipedia, since they don't help me be a better editor. And quite frankly, instead of expressing your feelings, I wish you spent your time on Wikipedia doing a better job at tidying up: you again left an infobox half messed up and full of irrelevant garbage about stopovers and missing people [1]. We discussed it before: if you don't want to work with raw wikitext, then do not edit infoboxes, thanks. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Chixulub Image Removal - irrelevant picture of a pier removedEdit

curprev 09:08, 28 May 2019‎ Deeday-UK talk contribs‎ 57,583 bytes -148‎ irrelevant picture of a pier removed and remaining ones rearranged more sensibly undothank

Hi. I don't consider the photo irrelevant. I have been to "the crater" and there is virtually no info in Chixulub as to where the crater is (or any information at all on it's whereabouts) in relation to the town. Basically nobody there has any idea what one is talking about. So the photo gives visitors a simple reference point and the caption explained where in relation to the wharf the crater center was. I think I might put it back. What do you think?

Thanks LawrieM (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I still think that photo does not add anything to the article. That wharf is just a random structure roughly in the same geographic area, as is the rest of Chicxulub town. It bears no relation to the crater (that is it's not some sort of monument or marker of the event) and doesn't even point towards its centre, which makes the captioned picture misleading: if you sailed out to sea along the wharf's direction, you would miss the centre of the crater by almost 10 km, by looking at Google Maps and referring to the coordinates at the top of the article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

OK we will have to agree to disagree on that one then. Having been there I know there is nothing anywhere that even mentions the crater and I wish there had been some quick indication ( a photo?) of where the crater actually was. We need to note that the crater is huge and where the exact center is is open to debate. Also Chicxulub town is not where the crater center is. Chicxulub Puerto ( where the wharf is and closest to the center) is a long way from Chicxulub - so this adds to the general confusion as well. I will put a note on the crater talk page first then maybe put it back. Ta LawrieM (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly against the picture per se, as long as it comes with a better caption that refers generically to the town of Chicxulub Puerto, rather than the wharf. Giving the location of the centre of the crater in relation to the wharf is false precision; such location is too uncertain to pinpoint it as 'out to sea from the wharf'. The most we can say is that it is off the coast near Chicxulub Puerto, or words to that effect. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed you are correct - and I have added back the photo with the caption as suggested by you. Maybe the location needs improving? If so I will leave it up to you. Thanks LawrieM (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit


Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

El-Al Flight 1862Edit

We had this discussion some years back, and that word has gone back and forth a number of times. The cited reference states: De ramp heeft 43 mensen gedood, waaronder de drie bemanningsleden. Vele anderen raken gewond. Er kunnen ook slachtoffers vallen onder illegale appartementbewoners, maar hoeveel er zijn is nooit gevonden. The direct translation of illegale appartementbewoners is illegal apartment dwellers. Explicitly "illegal", although it doesn't say immigrants. I don't see anything in the reference which says "undocumented immigrants", but I'm not a fluent dutch reader, so it's possible you could find that. Tarl N. (discuss)

Feel free to put it back, maybe adding a hidden comment in the source code referring to the above. When I see such suspicious, potentially controversial edits by anonymous users who don't bother leaving a word of explanation in the edit summary, I normally revert on sight. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

First Air Flight 6560Edit

Changing the links at First Air Flight 6560 has nothing to do with WP:NOTBROKEN. It has everything to do with serving the general reader and the more experienced reader. It does not help the general reader to be sent to a section on the Boeing 737 page about a specific variant. So the first link in the box and the prose should go to the the main page. Any subsequent link can go to the section. Another option is that the box could be written as [[Boeing 737]] ([[Boeing 737-210C|201C]]). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The infoboxes on accident articles are always fully detailed (often containing details missing from the body), and are read also by knowledgable readers, not just general ones, so a more specific link is entirely appropriate; the general reader can always scroll up to the top of the Boeing 737 article, if the 737-200 section is unhelpful.
General readers are unlikely to even care which version of the 737 was involved, so if you think that the first link in the lead should cater for them (fair point), just use [[Boeing 737]] in the body. I really don't see a reason to deviate from WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's GreetingsEdit

  FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

BA Flight 9 source edit reversal and unsubstantiated reason for reversal.Edit

You reversed my edit sourcing the demolition of, and subsequent removal of the debris of the aircraft from BOH. You unilaterally decided my source was unreliable. The source was myself. I was the photographer who documented this over several days, and am in possession of the evidence. Can you either please justify the removal, or reinstate what I wrote?

Guaglione Malavita - as photographer Guaglione Malavita (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you may have witnessed the event and collected first-hand evidence, but merely owning a website and working as a photographer does not make you a reliable source. I'm not a reliable source either, for that matter. Reliable sources are independent sources that have an established reputation for accuracy; see the guidelines at WP:RS and WP:SELFPUBLISH. As suggested in this unofficial essay: WP:WITNESSOFEVENTS, your best option would be to get some RS to publish your material or at least mention it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

IFR and Graham Hill plane crashEdit

I don't understand why you reversed my edition. I look forward to a rectification from you. Jmarchn (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:DAB. Your edit on IFR turned the page into a disambiguation page, but a disambiguation page for that term already existed: IFR (disambiguation), and there shouldn't be two dab pages for the same term. If you want to help further, please self-revert all your recent edits such as [[Instrument flight rules|IFR]] back to [[IFR]], since they contravene MOS:NOPIPE. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, I had not seen the disambiguation page.Jmarchn (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020Edit

Your recent editing history at Controlled flight into terrain shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DonIago (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I know that, Doniago. I don't normally revert more than twice without starting a discussion, and this case was no different. Indeed, the reverting had already died down, so you kinda jumped the gun I'm afraid. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Deeday, I already asked you what is the actual problem and why you don't wanna let me post that picture, but you did not answer me. I let you do your job, I don't cancel what you do, I don't have this right if you don't post mistakes. Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I will reply on the article's Talk page when I get around to do it. This isn't exactly a matter of life or death. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean that you refuse to answer and talk with me? I am afraid it is not gonna be so easy, you wanted start an issue and now the issue is going on. If it is not a matter of live and death, so why don't you just let me post the picture? Why is it so important for you to stop me from doing it? Who do you think you are to stop the other people from contributing? Could you at least answer this question? Wich authority do you hav to behave in this way? Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Charlie, as I noted at your Talk page, I initiated a discussion at the article's Talk page. This is a better location to discuss a content dispute, as other editors with an interest in the subject can weigh in there. As I mentioned at the time, you're welcome to participate in that discussion. I'm not sure what your goal is by engaging with Dee in such a confrontational manner here. DonIago (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, DonIago, you are right. I don't have experience in this kind of Wikipedia matters, I thought it was a good idea to talk with him but I can see that is gonna be useless, so from now on I will talk only in the artycle's talk page Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


really? Are you serious. عمر الشامي (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Readers of the Beirut explosion's article are unlikely to want to click on Europe for more information. Magnitude is a disambiguation page. The change of spelling was unwarranted. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow! signal pageEdit

Hello Deeday-UK, Just to inform you that a thread has been opened on the Dispute resolution noticeboard page, regarding the non-notable material that a "contributor" is attempting to insert on the Wow! signal page. I was not informed that this was happening - per Wikipedia conventions and in any case feel that this was totally unnecessary as the discussion was continuing, albeit with a warning that the person should never delete other editors comments on the Talk page. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the "contributor" has again opened a Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion on the same subject, despite being rejected a few days ago. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


Disambiguation link notification for December 26Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Howitzer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)