Jump to content

User talk:N419BH/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

clarify

Just to make sure, I wasn't talking about you. Yesterday I had a brief interaction with a very eager but very very young editor who's name appears on that list.[1] If you read that talk page you'll see what I was thinking of.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken. Just making the point that decent potential candidates are on that list. N419BH 17:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I should probably start throwing sarcasm tags in or something because 4 out of 5 times I use my brilliant wit I end up explaining/appologizing for it.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

AfC

Hi, thanks for helping in AfC. I undid this edit because a. previous templates are useful for reviewers after they resubmit the article (which they did) and b. we don't "archive" anything, just leave the declined ones there. Thanks, —fetch·comms 03:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It was in the pending category because the author resubmitted it an there was, well, a pending tag at the top of it. That means you need to reassess the article, either put it on hold again, or decline it if the issues are too big/it has no hope of surviving an AfD. Or create it if it's good. —fetch·comms 03:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
If you read the decline template, it tells users to resubmit the article by adding {{subst:AFC submission/submit}}; this creates a new pending template. It doesn't matter where it is. —fetch·comms 03:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Just change the old hold tag to decline and the new pending one to hold, with new concerns if applicable--just so the author can keep track. —fetch·comms 03:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I've got it now. Now off to sort the backlog! Thank you for your help! N419BH 03:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer question

Hi N419BH, Would you please enforce the reviewers to leave a way for discussion or contact to be possible. I have no idea who reviewed my article and I don't see how I can address their issues aside from agreeing with them - which I don't. I'm not sure if the history from the previous AFD came with this but we had a long and spirited debate where many of these issues were cleared up. Early on, one person said the article seemed more like an ad, but I edited it to remove promotional words, etc. There were no further critiques in that vein. 3rd party sources were an issue and I have added some in the external links (I have so many sources on there now, I didn't know where to put the new one). Also, the reason I went this route instead of just moving the article was that MOVING forced me to change the name - that didn't make any sense since there was no article in existence with the name. How do you move an article without changing the name? thanks. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, N419BH,

That's awesome you fly those planes. What is your favorite to fly? I'd guess the Beechcraft Super King Air. I'd think seeing the props would be something in that case. I know its small fare, but I've had a glider lesson and really enjoyed it - especially how quiet it can get when you stall. I was going to go for liscense but it cost more than learning scuba, so I went with scuba for now. When I was a kid I always dreamed of flying the Kyūshū J7W and the Dornier Do 335. I'm pretty impressed with the new Russian jets. Specifically the Mig-35 - thrust vector control is amazing. Here's a YouTube video if you haven't already seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIdvSQB2dP4&feature=related. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

King Air is a blast, though the 727 sim was quite fun as well. Never flown gliders. N419BH 22:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, —fetch·comms turned down my article after we'd been working on it. I didn't get any further feedback after our substantial changes. I feel what happened has hamstrung the discussion and improvment. If you go to his talk page you can see what happened - otherwise I'll leave the discussion here. Thanks for your help ChildrenOfLight (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to having this article, just not in its current state, as it is still very similar to the previous version (see User:ChildrenOfLight/temp's first revision for the old version, and the second for the new version, to compare. The wording is very similar in most places and only a few new facts have been added). —fetch·comms 19:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
What is similar is similar because it must be there - there is no point in re-writting ALL the sentences if there was no issue with the body in the previous AFD discussion. Besides, the article HAS been substantially altered. We have substantially altered the body. We have altered the headings, we have altered the intro. You are using a technicality which does not stand in a objective light to get rid of this article. Your determination that it is "too similar" is entirely subjective and is NOT supported by WP laws (I posted them on your talk page). Your requirement that I "almost entirely re-write the article with different sources" is not possible. This is a technicality wielded by pure subjectivity and should not stand. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
There was an issue with notability (deals with whole thing), sources (deals with body), tone (deals with body). While some of these issues have been resolved, I still do not see adequate coverage in independent sources. In addition, many "laws" (we have no such laws, we have policies, which are different) are subjective, just as AfDs are subjective. This "technicality" is perfectly backed up in policy and you are the one refusing to accept that your article is not ready yet because not enough coverage is available for you to add new information. —fetch·comms 20:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't need to respond to your exstraneous criticism because it is not at issue here. This was not why you deleted it and is entirely debatable, so it does not matter to this current dicussion. Please remain focused. AFD's allow for discussion (the subjectivity lies in who all is discussing. ie what the sample demographically is at that moment) - what you did was unilateral. You have forced me into a defensive posture by this action. You did not add a "comment" suggestion that it needed to be rewritten - you simply acted in a subjective way. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

just revised the new article titled "Decision Making Paradox"

Hi there,

I believe you edited a new article I tried to create on Wikipedia. The title is "Decision Making Paradox".

I liked your comments very much! I am new on this and this is how I exhibited this weaknesees. I appreciate all your comments very much!

I followed your advice carefully and revised that article accordingly.

I would appreciate it very much if you could visit it again and review it. If, however, you still have issues with it, please let me know and I will do my very best to respond to them. If you are happy with the new version, then please remove any flags of concern and make the article available to the entire community.

Thank you in advance,

WayneToms (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

revised article titled "Decision making paradox"

Dear N419BH,

I just wanted to kindly remind you that I have revised the above captioned article according to your thoughful comments.

If you still feel it needs more revision, please let me know with details. Otherwise, you may want to remove those tags expressing "issues."

Thank you very much for everything!

WayneToms (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Got my Message

I can't edit my talk page? 174.137.52.217 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
And I didn't do the standard offer because I didn't know about that? But I am willing to go 2 years. To be honest I am in a mess. I like editing on Wikipedia so I continued to edit. I really do want to be an actual editor here. You can go through my sock investigations. 174.137.52.217 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Category A-B 0-9 listing

Hi could you have a look at this: Category:Volunteer Gliding Squadron , Not sure what to do to get the listing correct but its not listed them in Squadron order, just taking the first number out of three which is a 6 instead of for example 613 VGS, Thanks Pandaplodder (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not too familiar with categories. I'll have a look but no promises. N419BH 07:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on...

...if you're going to accept AFC articles, at least try to make them look halfway decent... ǝɥʇM0N0 02:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well gee thanks. Only reviewed about 25 today. Only accepted that one because it was fairly well written and had some claim to notability. You may note on the WP:AFC page that we do not require perfection of new article submissions. The sources may be somewhat lacking but placing a (citation needed) tag on every single sentence is fairly detrimental to the project and not in keeping with the style of most articles here. Possibly read WP:SOFIXIT. If you think it's beyond saving, nominate it at WP:AFD or request WP:CSD. But don't insult me. Try "Hey, I think you made a mistake here and this is why..." instead. Might make me a better reviewer. I swear friendliness on this site is sorely lacking. N419BH 06:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't meet notability guidelines, as there are no reliable sources, which indicate notability. Before you review articles, read about notability—competence is required. See what I did: that's exactly what you should do. Additionally, you should look at the page history, where I explained why I moved it to AfC; you should also read Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2010_November_8#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser:Rouelshimi.2FTour_Egypt. Unless there's a reliable citation, there's no point in having it. Is that clearer? ǝɥʇM0N0 19:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright, my bad. Looks like they've added sources for all your [citation needed] tags, but they're all from the company's website. Probably gonna end up at AfD unless the author can find something reliable. I'll take a closer look at the sources next time. N419BH 19:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

please help me

please help me make it better then.... ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elika2010 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections!

Dear N419BH, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh 09:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming (re?) trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them, as do most other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, those are excellent questions. Please post them on my questions talk page and I will be happy to answer them. N419BH 21:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
So posted, glad you like them... Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice

I have undid your edit here because..

  1. This is not a content dispute. Many behavioral issues are the end results of content disputes.. in fact that is usually always the case in regards to threads on ANI. You may as well just close all of them as well for being 'content disputes'.
  2. This is a behavioral issue. As noted above, yes, it did arise because of a content dispute.. but that is not what the thread is about, it is about behavior.
  3. Violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are definitely actionable.
  4. You are not an admin; you don't get to decide when people stop talking.

— Dædαlus Contribs 20:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I performed a WP:Non-admin closure with a little bit of WP:IAR mixed in. I've done them before on ANI. Some have stood; a few have been reverted. I am at least the second person now to say the two of you need to disengage. I do not get where people get the idea that administrators and their opinions are to be respected more than those of "regular" editors. N419BH 20:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Closing that thread would be good, but closing it as content dispute, which your wording implied, would not be a great rationale. I agree that the underlying content dispute may qualify for WP:LAME, but the ANI spat stemming from it has a different kind of lameness, the kind that WP:WQA is for. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Requirement to disclose previous and other accounts

Hi, could you do this in your candidate statement, as required? It may end up being a technical matter of compliance that would affect your eligibility. Thanks. Tony (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing from 2010 ArbCom election

I hereby withdraw my 2010 candidacy for the arbitration committee. I decided to run because I saw a lack of candidates and felt that I could successfully carry out the role of arbitrator in the absence of more qualified individuals. Since then, a number of quality people with far more experience than I have stepped forward. In light of this, I am withdrawing my candidacy. N419BH 23:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest and for stepping up when you thought you were needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
What-Brad-said. You did yourself well, here. We're short of admins, so you should consider that role. As they say, adminship is no big deal. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

assassination

Why not reply on the talk page of the article. Did you read the sources I added? They do not support the current wording and one of the two sources re-added was already in the citation I gave, but it had been selectively quoted to advance a position (as its primary meaning had been ignored and only its second meaning had been advanced. But all this is discussed on the talk page of the article, which for some reason you do not seem to have addressed before reverting. -- PBS (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are, you need to read talk:assassination#First sentence and then look at the first edit I made. It includes the removal of one source, but the addition of two new ones and a full quote from Merriam-Webster Dictionary of its primary meaning (and its secondary one) which was previously selectively used. Currently you have included two very authoritative sources the Oxford English Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary that do not support the current wording because they are being incorrectly cited. -- PBS (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I put in a summary of the three sources is because two of them include the point of "treacherous violence". This is important because a prominent person killed in combat is not usually considered assassinated. Eg think of the death of Richard III of England killed upon Bosworth field. Also the execution of Charles I which was done on full public view and although traitorously done (at least by the law of 1660) it was not treacherously done. -- PBS (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My Article is being rejected. OmniFlow

My article is being rounds rejected on the grounds "I'm sorry, but your article appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia."

I have modified the content after the review comment. But i have received the same comments again.

Kindly guide me, which sections of the article is objectionable, so that i could change it.

Link of my page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/OmniFlow

Sarthakbanerjee (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

you're missing all the usual shenanigans ;)

We're down another candidate... Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Lunalet

I don't know who they are, but I don't buy the story that they can't remember their previous user name. I gave Lunalet more than enough assistance in finding their previous contributions at ANI, which is where it is claimed previous contributions were made. Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A final NPA warning should suffice for now. That draws the line, once crossed action can be taken. Mjroots (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
For info, Lunalet is now at ANI. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong editor

Hi. Thanks for your message about Talk:Air France Flight 4590. Unfortunately, you have directed it at the wrong editor. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, N419BH. You have new messages at Barts1a's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 10:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Only a tip, you might want to think of starting a page like User_Talk:Barts1a/mentorship, which would be meant only for posts by mentor and mentored. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Some assistance please...

I could use some help here... People on my talk page are effectively saying that Editing restrictions do not apply to reverting vandalism as I have done here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barts1a (talk • contribs)

Yeah, looking again, I wound up seeing that. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Question...

Is This guy suffering from a WP:OWN problem? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 07:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly but I wouldn't worry about him. Looks like a couple admins are aware of him and keeping an eye out for trouble. N419BH 08:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

PRODs

I have been contesting all of your PRODs of NFL players. Every single one has played in the NFL/CFL, meeting WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the note, I'll stop PRODing them. I'll keep trying to find references and tagging the ones I can't as unreferenced BLPs. I'm going through this list after finding one of the articles at the unreferenced BLP drive. Most haven't been touched except by bots and AWB people since 2007. N419BH 21:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
For the most part, the articles User:Gypaetus created are about former NFL players that probably won't get edited often since they aren't current players. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Couple of pro bowlers and a few members of super bowl winning teams in there. Others seem pretty run-of the mill players. Didn't know WP:ATH made them all notable hence I was prodding the ones that hadn't been awarded some honor or played in a super bowl or pro bowl. Thanks for informing me of WP:ATH. btw, if the best teams end up in the NFC championship this year, it's gonna be epic. A certain member of the team I'm guessing you like returns to Atlanta...get ready for fireworks N419BH 22:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
That may be the most hyped game that has not been scheduled yet in NFL history. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Hey there. I was wondering if you'd like to 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 19:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Gabi Hernandez

FYI, she's back. User:24.34.144.92, adding decorative images. Sigh. Rm994 (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

s:Wikisource

Hello, N419BH. You have new messages at s:User talk:N419BH

timestamp for the archive bot N419BH 01:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What the...?

Do you think you can shed some light on these messages I received from this I.P?

timestamp for the archive bot N419BH 01:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Polish AF crash

Agree with you re the work you've put in. I have backing for my proposal to remove the tag on Sunday failing any specific examples of NPOV. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You Deserve It!


 The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for all your help in this impersonation case, I appreciate it! Signed by the real Fox816 (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate that N419BH 07:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

KC-767

Yeah, thanks. Glad I could help. Well, it's dragged on long enough. It will be nice to see the aging fleet of KC-135 rubbish slowly retired. BTW, I added my text to the 'airticle' because it is noteworthy that the Air Force finally decided against an aircraft whose computers would have second-guessed the judgment of experienced human pilots. IMHO, it would have been dangerous business to acquire an aircraft that precluded evasive maneuvers that could save the crew and aircraft. --Inetpuppy (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A measure of thanks....

The Editor's Barnstar
Many thanks for your fine-tuned editing of the Academy of Art University article. →Lwalt ♦ talk 05:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Claims made on my behalf

as can be seen from the noticeboard and the article talk page JamieMichelle continually claims that I have admitted and said things that I have not (I can provide diffs if required) and expressed comments on my knowledge that I find offensive.

Quote Example:

So you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about on this subject. It is therefore logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving grammar and typos, and the like.

Or is it best for me to let sleeping dogs lie? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a fairly common thing with editors like this. I wouldn't press the issue. If they keep up their current behavior they'll find themselves blocked in a hurry. Don't revert anything they add to the article in the next couple hours or you'll potentially violate WP:3RR and get blocked. According to that rule Jamie should be blocked right now for violation of 3RR but the admins haven't seen it. At this point it's probably stale anyway. We only block to prevent disruption, we don't use punitive blocks aka blocks to punish people. You now have three editors, including myself, that agree with your version of the article. Have a read of WP:BOOMERANG when you get a chance; Jamie's likely to be the one in hot water after initially coming to ANI to get you in hot water. It happens with extreme frequency here. In short, keep doing what you're doing, don't violate WP:3RR, and you'll be fine. An admin will deal with Jamie once she pushes enough buttons. N419BH 00:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to bring your attention back to the Tipler page, from the talk page it seems that Jaimemichelle is going to try put references back into the article whether it makes sense to do so or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've filled a notice before it gets to the stage of more reverts. Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

I would like you to give assistance now that I have rollback back. WayneSlam 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, N419BH. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Air crash

So you file an AFD on behalf of someone else and then !vote "speedy keep"? Wouldn't it be better just not to follow through on the AFD? Following through seems like process for the sake of process. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

An IP and an editor both made a good-faith nomination for deletion. A couple other editors on the talk page and at WP:ITN have expressed concerns with the article's notability. Since the nomination was made in good faith, even though it wasn't done completely correctly, it is only proper for the nomination to be completed and the debate to ensue. In my mind, not holding the discussion because it wasn't nominated completely correctly would be wikilawyering a way out of the debate. Therefore, I nominated a page I created for deletion, and made my case for not deleting it. N419BH 05:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I must say I was surprised that TPH closed it, especially as he is active in nominating articles for deletion. In one way, the early close may not have been good, as it did stifle the debate. That said, I'm confident that the article would have been kept. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 232

Looking good. :) -Atmoz (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles (talk · contribs) did the GAR when I re-nominated BOAC Flight 712, with a bit of input from HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). Someone will review it eventually. It took a fair while for Lympne Airport to get reviewed. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 812 (2nd nomination)

I relisted this after the original nominator filed a DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 03:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Pitot icing

..should not be possible unless the tubes are either faulty or their heaters lose power. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This is true. And all the tubes involved were replaced by different models by airworthiness directives on all A330s and A340s. The distinction that needs to be made is the potentially faulty tubes may have allowed pitot icing to form which caused faulty airspeed readings. The tubes in and of themselves, however, likely didn't cause faulty readings. The potential design fault is the buildup of ice, not faulty airspeed readings. N419BH 16:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of straying way into OR territory, there are a number of contributing factors: I'm not a fan of the NTSB's approach of focussing on a single causation, it misses too many opportunities to improve safety. For instance, assuming for a moment a finding that icing was the leading event, they would ignore (or relegate to possible "contributing factors") such as the hypothesized economic decision to routinely operate routes in that higher-risk mid-Atlantic intertropical convergence zone, the lack of a backup system for airspeed sensing, the lack of realtime satellite WX imagery, the lack of independent redundant pitot heaters, etc. I'm not saying any of these actually contributed, but if fixing them would create a safer ops environment the investigators should derive those lessons anyway. Its then up to regulators to decide whether a change to fix them is worth mandating, but the first step is always to identify the potential risk factors. There would of course be balancing concerns: e.g. redundant heaters would imply additional wiring which carries its own failure risks. Designers should always learn from past errors, but that doesn't mean they have to try out every possible error first. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking the vertical stabilizer separated in flight as a result of aircraft overspeed due to the pitot failures. The articles on the main wreckage state that it was found a significant distance from where the surface debris was found, and that this likely indicated an in-flight breakup. What debris did they find on the surface? They found the vertical stabilizer. Obviously that's way into WP:OR at this point, but keep an eye on the news reports. We have not heard the last of this.
As for airspeed, there are on most jets 3-4 separate pitot tubes each running independent airspeed indicators. In this case, the pitot tubes themselves were possibly at fault, so the redundancy was made moot by a fault in the sensors themselves, which were all the same model. This is why the space shuttle flies with five separate guidance computers. Four run identical software. The fifth runs a separate software written by a different company. That way if some sort of coding error causes the four main computers to crash, the fifth computer, running separate software, won't be affected. N419BH 18:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick question...

I know I can't edit noticeboards at this time; but I am thinking of launching an RFC/U into Ryulong's incivility and (ab/over)use of rollback privelages. Can I do that or at least file a Wikiquette alert to get the ball rolling? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Also: I notice on Help:Reverting that it reads "...Rolling back a good-faith edit, without explanation, may be misinterpreted as "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and reverting it doesn't need an explanation". Some editors are sensitive to such perceived slights; if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted...". Does this apply within the userspace of the reverter? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, N419BH. You have new messages at Barts1a's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:

I will, yes, and the text itself was agreed upon on the talk page by all major participants in the dispute. :) Toa Nidhiki05 23:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Heidrick & Struggles

Hi N419BH,

Thanks for the review on the article. I didn't realize the tone was a bit too commercial as I was just emulating the other article Korn/Ferry. This firm is one of the large 5 firms in this field. One of the smaller firms also has an article Egon Zehnder International. I edited the wording, is it currently suffice for resubmission?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Heidrick_%26_Struggles 

219.76.231.209 (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Alex

Hmmm. Do you have any specific recommendations regarding the sources? The message rejecting it a second time is the same as the first time around. In terms of independent sources, the article already cites several news publications and an article detailing the history of the firms by a professional independent body, the Association of Executive Search Consultants. I'm still not sure whats wrong with it. 219.76.231.209 (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Alex

Thanks N419. I re-edited the article and included more history. Hope that would be good. 219.76.231.209 (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Alex

N419, just resubmitted the article. Hope that works. Thanks again for the help. 219.76.231.209 (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Alex

ReConnected (band)

Hi. I want to know why you nominated this article for deletion. There are at least 5 or more sources currently on the page, but there are so more relating to Reconnected and Connected, that I still need to put in the page but other users, from their website, I have asked them to help adding information. Their fanbase is large, and so many gigs around the UK in the last year, so shouldn't this be considered notable? Emirates123 (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe I stated in the WP:PROD that the article seemed to not meet notability guidelines and furthermore there was a distinct lack of reliable, third party sources. I see that improvements to the article are being made and I would encourage you to continue making them. N419BH 05:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My editing restrictions...

I was wondering if it is possible to have my current editing restrictions reviewed and possibly have one or more (but not all) removed. What do you think? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

fyi

Hi. If you've any doubt... ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) Jack 09:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nottingham Moderns RFC review

Hello,

you recently reviewed the article I am attempting to create for Nottingham Moderns RFC. Firstly, thanks for this! I have edited the page, removing the 'club history' section, as like you mentioned the only reliable sources I could use were from the club's own website, not from a 3rd party source. I believe the rest of the article is ready for review once more, as it is all 3rd party sourced and factual. Would you be able to review it again, or do I have to wait in the list again?

You also commented about the fact that my user name is NMRFC and this indicates that I may be connected to the club and referred me to the conflict of interest page. I wanted to explain this error. I am, in a way connected to the club as I am a former player from some years back. I am new to Wikipedia and only set the account up to create a page for Nottingham Moderns, so I selected the club's abbreviation as a username - I hope this clears this up!

by way of reference for creating the Nottingham Moderns RFC page, I have been looking at West Bridgford RFC and Loughborough RFC pages, as they are opposing teams in Nottingham Moderns' league - I do not wish to cast doubts on the integrity of their entries, but I think my planned submission is a much better refernced article.

Many thanks for your time,

Rob Hirsch NMRFC (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Vote on article name

Hello. You are invited to take part in a 'Gordion knot vote' with three options on the future title of List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA

I know that not passing at this time is disappointing, but withdrawing at this time is probably wise. Moving forward, if you have an occasional about admin-type stuff as you are continuing your good work around the wiki, please feel free to ask me (or anyone else). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry your RfA didn't pass first time. I'm sure you will learn from it and return in a few months for a successful re-run. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your statement that you will be back, it show that you have the character to survive the mistreatment that an admin would get. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My user page

Proposing my userpage for deletion, because of one section offending you, without notice or comment, really isn't a smart thing to do! I understand there is some DRAMA I do not fully digest behind this, so I surely assume good faith on your part. Cheers.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, N419BH. You have new messages at Newyorkbrad's talk page.
Message added 15:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfA

Hi N419BH. Sorry about your RfA. It was closed before I had a chance to take a proper look at it so how I would have voted is moot. Nevertheless, I think you would do well at a future attempt. That said, could I ask you to take a look at this and give me some feedback on it? Would it have helped you? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the note and encouragement. I took at quick look at your advice page and like what I see. I will take a more in-depth look and give you my take on the page in the next few days. Thanks! N419BH 03:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
From my own point of view as a pilot (152, VFR only), based on the coolness, attention, and responsibility required for flying aircraft, that would count very much in your favour ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Nice! I've got some 152 time. Fun little birds. 172's a bit roomier though. I prefer the low wing Pipers myself, but that's because I have a lot more experience in them (50 hours high wing vs. 350 hours low wing). N419BH 18:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Δ

Your opinion is duly noted, and normally I'd probably agree, however given Δ's extensive and "colourful" history and unusual circumstance of being under indefinite community sanction, I believe an exception is warranted. Therefore, I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion and decline your request for an unblock. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC).

check six

Hello, N419BH. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.


⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

173.60.130.241

This user is also a career vandal on The Attitude Era, contantly reverting to a misinformed version which reflects how he wants the world to percieve the article. Can it be protected or this guy warned/blocked? 2.124.196.31 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Now using 74.100.197.9 to continue the career vandalism and marking it as a minor edit. 2.124.196.31 (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The edit does not appear to be vandalism, but rather a content dispute. The proper response is to discuss the changes on the talk page and come to a consensus. If this has already been done and the IPs are continuing to revert, then what you're dealing with is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the IPs may be blocked for disruption. If the discussion has taken place please let me know where, if it hasn't then you should have it. I'll keep an eye on things. N419BH 14:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, N419BH. You have new messages at Talk:American Airlines Flight 191/GA1.
Message added 11:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- DQ (t) (e) 11:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Damning

Where is this behavior pattern that is damning? Are you accusing me of stalking Jack Merridew? He was "convicted" of stalking me. I find your tone towards me astonishing. I reserve the right to take long wiki breaks given the stress Jack Merridew puts me through on this site. -- Cat chi? 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply

My post at WP:SPI is connecting the evidence I have seen. Perhaps I was too fast on the trigger. It is of course possible that some troll is impersonating you via proxies. Also, as I joined the wiki long after all of the shite between you and Jack went down I am perhaps unaware of some other player involved who might be inclined to show up in a Jack-sock-tagging WP:SPA manner. As additional checkusers have now stated that you and SilentBlues are unrelated I will strike out my WP:DUCK assertion at WP:SPI. Ah, the pitfalls of the wiki.

I would suggest that you possibly tone down the rhetoric however. Perhaps acting in a more collected and collaborative manner you will find yourself more allies and fewer critics here on the wiki. Take care. N419BH 20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I wish it was that easy, over half a decade I have been forced to deal with this person time and time again as a result I get a little carried away when being forced to deal with him again because people (*COUGH* Arbcom *COUGH*) keep unblocking him. I apologize if you were hit by some of the flak but I was feeling wiki-lynched for the third or fourth time because of this individual. Not that I am trying to make excuses but just trying to elaborate on the reasons of my actions. Each time I have to present evidence trying to prove my innocence when in fact I am the victim. I will however take your advice from now on though I do not know how I can work in a collaborative manner after all that happened in the years accumulating to this day. -- Cat chi? 20:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply 2

Hey White Cat, I've made an additional comment at the SPI requesting it be closed. Thanks for your patience, and I apologize for my strongly worded evidence statement in that location. N419BH 03:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is fine I think. I did a little digging myself I noticed these: [2] which trails to [3] (User:81.164.215.61) which trails to User:Access Denied. I think this is what is going on. I do not know who this person is but fair chance he may be User:Access Denied. Since he chose to vanish, there isn't much to discuss but this is what I think. -- Cat chi? 03:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The IPs connected to Access Denied locate to Mexico City and Nevada, and his standard modus operadi doesn't seem to match up to this type of behavior. He'd have to either be in Brussels on vacation or that IP has to be an open proxy. I'd have a hard time believing it's AD based on those links and AD's known behavior. I of course could be wrong. It would be interesting to know whether that IP connected to SilentBlues is a proxy or not. The behavioral connection between the IP and SilentBlues is pretty easy to make though only the checkusers know whether it truly is SilentBlues for sure. N419BH 03:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Or he may be visiting Brussels :p. I cannot be sure about anything without data from checkuser tools. Even if I had the data from the tools I do not know how conclusive IP data would be since it matches at least two users (one being me and other being Fram) as well as countless other Belgians... The ISP I use distributes the dynamic IPs to the entire Brussels region which is most of the population of Belgium probably. I think this will remain a mystery forever - at least until I preform lexical analysis through machine learning. -- Cat chi? 09:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

IAC

Thanks for letting me know :) I posted a reply - Long story short, the agency itself uses "IAC" in English WhisperToMe (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks for the editorial contributions.

This user helped promote American Airlines Flight 191 to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Angie Goff Image

Is there anyway you can choose a better photo? That was the absolutely last photo I would have chosen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with this one. Goff is in the white, of course. The lady in the red is WUSA-TV reporter Lindsay Mastis, a former co-worker of Goff's (Goff just moved to WRC-TV in DC). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I picked that one because it was the only image of just her. I agree it isn't exactly the best photo, though it's arguably the best one for identifying the subject of the article since it's the only one with no one else in it. I also looked into cropping the other photos to remove the other people and there's simply no way to do it without a whole lot of editing and the resulting image looking fake. I have uploaded your suggested photo to commons here. It is currently awaiting review to ensure compliance with CC-BY-SA. If you'd like to change the infobox photo I have no problem with that; you might also just use both images, one in the infobox and one in the body. Since these images are from a fundraiser you might add a paragraph to her article describing her philanthropic endeavors and use one of these images there. N419BH 02:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the slowness in reply, this heavy rain lulled me to sleep. I am fine with the "having someone else" in the photo as the current one is not a flattering photo. I will switch to the photo with her and Lindsay Mastis, which is better. If you want to nominate the current photo (the unflattering one) for deletion, please do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
...and now it doesn't matter which one I want to use, they are both gone. Apparently, the Flickr user changed the license from CC-SA-2.0 to All Rights Reserved since last night on just those two photos, so they were deleted from Commons. Short of taking a photo myself, I am not sure what more we can do. So, I guess we can call this one a loss. Good work, though...just the way things work out sometimes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually that doesn't technically matter since the CC-BY-SA license is NOT revocable, see US Airways Flight 1549 for an example of this exact same thing happening. N419BH 10:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this "NPR" user changed the licensing for all the Angie Goff images. An IP Geolocating to the D.C. area also removed the Angie Goff image last night. It's possible that was the PR agency, Goff, or Goff's publicist removing it. However, that image is still available on Commons since it was reviewed and confirmed to be CC-BY-SA 2.0 before the license was changed on Flickr. So you still have that one photo available. You might also try using Flickr's e-mail function to contact Angie Goff directly and see if she will release a photo of herself to Wikipedia under an appropriate license. N419BH 10:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I can be for certain it is the PR agency and not Goff. She's a friend (via Facebook and just once-in-a-while email conversations) and she would have said something about it being her. It's cool though, I will find another image in the future. For now, I think we should just leave it as is. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
If she's a facebook/e-mail friend then e-mail her and ask for an image. She'll probably be more than happy to give Wikipedia one. I was gonna request one myself actually as a complete stranger. You'd be surprised how many images Wikipedia obtains simply by asking people. Especially for local media and medium-fame celebrities name recognition means a lot toward advancing their careers. Wikipedia is in the top 3-5 search results for these people (in Goff's case Wikipedia is number 3 after her facebook page and website). It makes a lot of sense for people to give Wikipedia an image in these cases. N419BH 20:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

“Seems to me we have someone who isn't here to build an encyclopedia.”

I’m sorry that was my introduction to you, but you’re only seeing half the story. Try to reserve judgment until you have the facts, rather than the spin. I want factually correct information, that is true; I also dislike people hiding agenda behind “facts” that are pointedly in dispute. A. J. REDDSON
timestamp for bot. N419BH 06:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:N419BH/Archive_2&oldid=1090548624"