Jump to content

User talk:DaveReidUK

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-600px-en.ogv
A video showing the basics of verifiability and neutral point of view policies.

Welcome!

Hello, DaveReidUK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is / was in aircraft articles

[edit]

Hi, following your edits to the De Havilland Comet article, a discussion has been started by the Aviation Wikiproject on is / was and remaining survivors. You are invited to participate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit or remove other editors' Talk page comments

[edit]

You may not edit or remove other editors' comments in any Request for Comment or other discussion on Wikipedia, as you did here. Please do not repeat this violation of our Talk page guidelines. General Ization Talk 13:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing up for this project. It is a very busy and active project with lots going on and we can always use more help and especially a fresh set of eyes. If you haven't done so already you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Royal Air Force aircraft names

[edit]

Template:Royal Air Force aircraft names has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle - January 2022

[edit]
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

Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921.

Closed Discussions


Featured Article assessment

Good Article assessment

Deletion

Requested moves

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.
New/Ongoing Discussions

On The Main Page


Did you know...

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) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A350 crash

[edit]

Sorry, i was wrong. There are only few sources giving a bit of details of the moment of collision, none detailed location of collision. Mine was wrong.

Interim report surprisingly gives no exact details of the moment of collision. 79.208.182.21 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, found the well-known: Aviation Safety Network: Japan Airlines flight JL516. Includes a good map at the bottom. 79.208.182.21 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators and discussion

[edit]

Hello, I figured I'd move this discussion here since I didn't want to clog the talk page of the Jeju Airlines crash more.

Administrators on Wikipedia are explicitly not content administrators. They are purely "dirty work" oriented - i.e. blocking editors who are only here to vandalize, or similar. Administrators have no special authority over content. Any editor can make any change to any article generally speaking (with some exceptions for topics that are contentious or have frequent arguments/misbehavior), without asking prior permission from anyone else. In rare cases, it becomes necessary to stop newer editors from editing certain articles because of persistent vandalism or unconstructive edits from them. This unfortunately frequently occurs right after big news stories because people see things in the news, see that "anyone can edit", and jump right in without understanding how things work on Wikipedia - especially requirements related to using reliable sources only (rather than blogs, etc), using neutral tone in articles and not favoring one side or another, ensuring due weight is given to different pieces of information both in relation to each other and in general, etc. It seems that on December 29th this article was initially protected only from brand new accounts, but there was enough disruption from accounts that were not brand new but were still fairly new (i.e. not extended confirmed) that the protection was increased thereafter. That's why you couldn't make the changes you requested, even though they were reasonable in my opinion. But even though an administrator protected the page to prevent that disruption (and you were caught in the crossfire), administrators are not "content moderators" who are then "responsible" for a page they protect.

It falls on other editors who do have the tenure required to continue editing the article while it is protected (which is not forever, in almost all cases). Unfortunately, as Wikipedia is a volunteer website, it sometimes falls on people like me to find time to look at edit requests, evaluate them, and discuss them, then make any changes required. One thing to learn as you continue to edit Wikipedia is that often times a short discussion or talk page post is preferable to making an edit immediately. Sure, fixing typoes/etc isn't going to be controversial - but even small changes to the wording can be controversial (as evidenced by the perpetual discussion any time an aviation incident happens as to whether to call it a crash/incident/accident/etc). It's permitted to make a bold edit that you think improves the article without any prior discussion or warning - I don't want you to think it's not. But if you don't discuss it first, others have only two options to voice their concern that your edit may not have been an improvement (even if you think it is uncontroversially an improvement). They can either undo your edit, or they can leave it up and start a discussion on the talkpage of the article to gather more opinions on it. If you then undo their undo (i.e. remake the edit, even if you make some minor changes), then it becomes an edit war, which is disruptive on its own as it makes it more difficult for others to edit (by causing edit conflicts) and causing people who view the article over time to see different versions - not because it's necessarily improved, but because it's going back and forth.

This is why I've always found that, especially when another editor has already made a change or started a discussion on the talk page, it's usually better to at least reply to that discussion or start one if need be, allowing other editors to chime in before I make the change I think needs made. We aren't perfect, and what I think is an improvement may be something that I'm just insane about and need to have my head screwed on straight. And there's no deadline for articles to be perfect (plus they likely never will be), so a slight delay in even an uncontroversial improvement to, well, make sure other editors agree with you isn't usually a problem. Furthermore, it's common that people (like myself) are unable to be on Wikipedia all day long - many people check Wikipedia only once a day and so if you make a post right after they've gotten offline, they may not see it until 24 hours later at best. Even when they see it, they may need more time to reply, because our time is limited and perhaps they were already planning to work on another article/issue/discussion during their time that day. This is why discussions can sometimes seem to move at a snail's pace - but since there's no deadline, it's fine if they do. I find it courteous to give people at least enough time (8 hours or so, assuming they just went to sleep before I posted) before I assume there is no dissent to my opinion/view/proposal/etc. But it's even more courteous to give at least 24 hours, because that ensures that anyone who edits only once a day (be it for a few minutes/hours) has had time to get to their daily editing time and see it. Sometimes, on low traffic articles, it may be a good idea to wait even longer - a couple days to a week - before you assume nobody has anything to say in response. It's all about balancing how much of an improvement it is, how controversial it may be, and how likely it is others are paying close attention to it when you decide how long to leave something before you assume no dissent - and only you can make that call as to how long you think is courteous and reasonable to leave. Sometimes that may be no time at all (i.e. making the edit immediately, as I describe above, and letting someone undo it if they disagree).

Hopefully this helps expand on why I didn't immediately make the change in that edit request (since it was already under discussion), and why nobody else had made it by that point (as it was still being discussed on the talk page fairly actively). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez Thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond in such detail. Useful background, much appreciated. DaveReidUK (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about how something works or what the best way to handle something is - I can't promise I'll know the answers nor that I'll be able to reply in a super timely manner, but I'm happy to help where I can. Feel free to post on my talk page if you need anything. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]