Jump to content

User talk:Shelbystripes/Archive 1

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

March 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Disaster film, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I'll keep that in mind; I didn't realize the rules were that strict. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drop test, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Wetbacks"

Your draft shows sincere effort, but in my opinion, still gives undue weight to the recent use of the term by Don Young. Appropriate coverage would include discussion of the term and its usage, from reliable sources over a period of several decades. Personally, I don't like Don Young and never have, but it is unfair to him to have his fresh political gaffe discussed so prominently in an encyclopedia article about the slur. That's my view of the matter, at least. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

More on my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

citation needed tags

Hi, Shelbystripes. I noticed this edit of yours on the 57th Street – Seventh Avenue (BMT Broadway Line) article was using {{citation needed}} templates incorrectly. I went ahead and fixed the tags for you. I've been fixing lots of those tags recently and see many users make the same mistake. I just today improved the documentation at {{citation needed}} concerning this. I'd be curious to know why and how you misused the templates and if my new documentation would have prevented the issue. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a new user and just misunderstood how it works. I make mistakes on template tags all the time, it's part of the learning process as a relatively new user. Thanks for the update. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It's no problem. I've seen many people making the same mistake so I'm genuinely curious if there's documentation somewhere leading people astray. If you have any questions about editing in the future, feel free to ask me. Thanks for the quick reply. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DART Light Rail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Love Field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dia De Los Toadies has been accepted

Dia De Los Toadies, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Green Line (Dallas Area Rapid Transit)
added a link pointing to Love Field
Orange Line (Dallas Area Rapid Transit)
added a link pointing to Love Field

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northwest Airlines Flight 255, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Standard Time. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please self-revert

Hello, Shelbystripes. I am asking you to self-revert at Dallas Streetcar. You are simply not correct in what you said in your most recent edit summary – you need to read MOS:DATEFORMAT again.

Know that when I created that article I specifically chose to use ISO dates for reference 'accessdates', which is completely appropriate under MOS:DATEFORMAT. Indeed, under MOS:DATERET, you are supposed to stick with the date formats the article was created with unless there is consensus to change the date formats, which there absolutely is not in this case. Under both DATERET and WP:BRD, it would be the proper thing to do for you to self-revert now that I have requested it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

IJBall, I have self-reverted on these edits. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

IJBall, I've already reverted these edits, but if you could enlighten me, why would you specifically choose ISO dates? Is there some advantage to this? I have yet to ever see one, and you're the first user/page-creator I've come across who had such a preference, so I'd like to understand it better. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Shelbystripes – first, thank you kindly for self-reverting! Second, my reasoning on this issue is probably best explained previously here. As a general idea, though, just know there there's no "house style" for citations on Wikipedia, and that includes reference dates formats (which MOS:DATEFORMAT is fairly clear about). For example, you will come across some articles where ISO dates are used for both ref 'date' and 'accessdate' parameters, and that's perfectly OK (though some editors dislike that!). Other editors have a strong preference for 'mdy dates' (or, in the case of the UK and Europe, 'dmy dates') for all article dates, including ref 'accessdates'. Still other editors don't care about date formats at all. Basically, though, under MOS:DATERET, whatever the first "established" date-format(s) is(are) established for an article should be kept including ref 'accessdates' (unless a strong argument for changing date-formats can be made under MOS:DATETIES, but that usually applies to dmy-vs-mdy date issues and doesn't usually include 'accessdate' formats). Anyway, I've been interested in this issue for a while, and I try to stick to MOS:DATERET whenever it's appropriate to do so... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
IJBall, I certainly wasn't intending to violate any any standing policies, and I think that there's enough vagueness in MOS:DATERET that (at least without some significant background, which shouldn't be necessary when reading the MOS) it can be read in multiple ways. I was reading it generally in terms of a page having one date format and thinking about it in terms of the MDY/DMY dispute (which I am acutely aware of); it didn't even occur to me that a page might have a different accessdate policy. Since the page at issue generally uses MDY dates, I assumed (especially after looking at the call for consistency in MOS:DATEFORMAT) this could be applied across the page, especially when some of the accessdates are already using MDY. (It also wasn't clear that you were the page founder or that you had a specific accessdate policy in mind, so until you wrote your note I wasn't aware of that part either.) And just to be clear, I'm just trying to discuss this right now; unless you concur (which I'm not expecting!), I'm not going to be changing the accessdate format on Dallas Streetcar again. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, one of the reasons I brought this up is that there's a broader issue here: and that's that editors have to be careful using Ohconfucius MOSDATE script. I've noticed that some editors hit the "All dates to mdy (of dmy) dates" option, without going back to earlier versions of article to double-check exactly what the article's earliest date formats were with respect to references in order to make sure they're keep to MOS:DATERET. As long as editors using Ohconfucius MOSDATE script attempt to do that (and then indicate that in the Edit summary), it's a lot less likely to lead to editing conflicts on articles about date formats. Because some editors, myself included, make conscious choices as to reference date formats when they start articles. (Of course, to be clear, other editors don't!) But, bringing this back around – MOS:DATEFORMAT definitely includes allowances for use of ISO dates in ref 'accessdates' (and, like I said – some articles even use ISO dates for the refs' regular dates as well, and I usually leave those articles refs in all-ISO format...). But, on my end, yeah – let's just please leave Dallas Streetcar as it is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 2311, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Standard Time. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ford class

Just curious, where did you learn about this and why can't you add that as a source? - theWOLFchild 02:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, where did I learn about what? I just took the latter half of a sentence (which wasn't supported by any sources), made it its own sentence, and marked it "citation needed". I didn't originally add that statement, I don't know where it came from, but I didn't want to just outright delete it, so I figured a CN tag was appropriate. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So it wasn't followed by the ref that originally followed it. Fait enough. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 04:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cowboy Mouth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • rock]], [[album-oriented rock]], [[roots rock]], [[jam bands]]<ref name="Reliable Source">[http://www.billboard.com/artist/299704/cowboy-mouth/biography Cowboy Mouth biography. Billboard.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Post-grunge

Can I please get your explanation of grunge & post-grunge & the differences between them. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. I think you may actually not know anything you're talking about here. 31.51.183.104 (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:GWAR, confirm to me that you have actually read it, confirm you will stop making edits for now, and then we'll talk. Until then, I have zero interest discussing with anyone who repeatedly violates WP:GWAR. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

68.48

Regarding this, "gathered info and ideas and shared them on the talk page for others who wanted to do the actual editing" isn't what we're talking about here. Check the contribution history; the "research and proposals" in question consist of forum-shopping to assorted noticeboards with explanations of how Wikipedia has been going about everything the wrong way for the past 15 years and demands we change it (this thread is fairly typical, but there are dozens more), mixed with pot-stirring at Talk:Black supremacy and Talk:Jesus. Note how many blocks for disruption this editor has racked up in his brief career here; this is either a sophisticated troll or an editor with serious competence issues, not a good faith editor trying to help Wikipedia who's being ganged up on by a wicked admin cabal who can't handle The Truth. ‑ Iridescent 18:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Iridescent, I assumed he's not being ganged up on by some online cabal. There is no Wikilluminati (or if there is, they haven't revealed themselves yet). I also don't think he's behaving in good faith right now, which is why I said he needs to take his lumps and ride out his current ban if he wants to become a real contributor down the road. And I agree that he's either a sophisticated troll or myopic editor; I was responding as if he's the latter. I wanted to plant an idea, that if he started doing what I described, he could actually be a useful contributor. I know that's not how he's behaving now. It's rare, but some people can be redeemed, if someone tells them they're redeemable. I know how rarely that actually happens, but I'm a sucker for lost causes. (And if he doesn't listen, I won't cry when you permaban him.) Shelbystripes (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

TWA 800 Page

Hi,

Would you be OK with discussing the edits to the TWA Flight 800 page here, in stages? I'm almost done sourcing and clarifying the first six edits, which is a manageable chunk.

Tom Stalcup (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Stalcup, I apologize for the delay in responding. I would certainly be willing to do so, if that's the approach you'd prefer. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

OK very good.

First, please consider the possibility that the official version of this crash was pushed very hard by high-level officials, in a manner similar to the way the faulty pre-Iraq war intelligence was pushed (and repeated by the major news outlets). The "conspiracy" label was as powerful, if not more, than the "unpatriotic" label feared by journalists who became effective stenographers in the run-up to the 2003 Iraqi invasion. The intelligence report on Iraq was similar to the NTSB Final Report on TWA 800, in that both reports highlighted questionable evidence to forward an inaccurate narrative and ignored or relegated to footnotes, discussion of critical evidence conflicting with that scenario. Also, just like in the pre-Iraq war misinformation, where intelligence analysts did not agree with the official narrative, many investigators who worked the NTSB investigation (a majority of them according to former TWA Chief Safety Officer Robert Young) did not and do not agree with the official probable cause determination released by the NTSB Board Members. Stalcup (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional source material cited, mainly from the investigators from the original investigation who went public in 2013 with their disagreement with the official TWA 800 narrative. NTSB Petition signed by senior NTSB investigator Hank Hughes, TWA Chief Safety Officer Robert Young, Medical Examiner Charles Wetli, NTSB Chief forensic pathologist consultant Colonel Dennis Shanahan M.D., and other former members of the NTSB's TWA 800 investigation: https://twa800project.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/petition-final.pdf Transcripts from the documentary TWA Flight 800 that features these former investigators: https://twa800project.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/twa-flight-800-transcripts.pdf Stalcup (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

1)Proposed text for article: The NTSB concluded that explosive traces detected in the wreckage were not "from the detonation of a high-energy explosive device on TWA flight 800". Senior NTSB investigator (Ret.) Hank Hughes and other investigators from the TWA 800 investigation concluded that "a detonation outside the [TWA 800] aircraft" may have "initiated its destruction"[Petition pg. 23] Stalcup (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Notes for background for this discussion only, not for inclusion in the article:

Note 1: After saying an explosion "on TWA flight 800" was ruled out, the NTSB continues: "Accordingly, the Safety Board concludes that the in-flight breakup of TWA flight 800 was not initiated by a bomb or a missile strike." The word "strike" here is very signficant and describes a missile striking TWA Flight 800, which shoulder-fired missiles (the only missile type considered by the NTSB in their Final Report) are designed to do. These missiles have contact-fuse warheads, which mean they detonate on contact with their targets. Thus the damage characteristics on surrounding metal structures of these missiles are nearly identical to bomb signatures: severe pitting, cratering, etc... The NTSB describes the lack of these signatures as further evidence that there was no "high-energy explosion" of a bomb or missile. However in several areas of their report, they fail to properly describe that detonation as occuring on TWA Flight 800, and not a distance away from it. In this regard, the NTSB in their final report never considered, and thus never ruled out, the only missile type that could have reliably downed a 747 at the altitude Flight 800 was flying: a proximity fuse missile, which are designed to explode "a distance away from the aircraft". According to Mr. Hughes, who oversaw the complete reconstruction of TWA 800's interior components, there is evidence consistent with this type of missile engagement. Stalcup (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

NOTE 2: The NTSB Final Report also suggested that the explosive traces would not have survived more than two days underwater (most wreckage was underwater for longer than this) because an FAA report concluded that explosives are "“somewhat soluble in [sea water].”" [NTSB Final Report, pg. 119]. However that FAA study was not published in a peer reviewed journal, and other studies have determined that the explosives in question are "practically insoluble in water" [ see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaerythritol_tetranitrate ]. Further, the FAA report was based on a study conducted off a dock in New Jersey near a marsh, and microbial life was found to play a role. When the same water off that dock was boiled by the FAA investigators who authored that report to kill the mircrobes, dissipation was not seen. Stalcup (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


2)Proposed text for article: "ending the most extensive, costly, and controversial air disaster investigation in U.S. history." Stalcup (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Background for this discussion, not for inclusion in the article:

Examples of controversy: FBI withheld wreckage with signs of a criminal act from the NTSB; FBI would not allow the NTSB to interview eyewitnesses; the CIA was called in to produce a video on what they eyewitnesses saw, and they did so without interviewing any witnesses; an FBI agent was caught hammering on a piece of curled fuselage attempting to flatten it; FBI agents were caught on surveillance camera, breaking into a locked aircraft hangar in the middle of the night; the original NTSB Eyewitness Group Chairman who concluded that 96 witnesses saw an object rise off the surface before the crash was replaced by another NTSB employee who "worked closely" with the CIA for "sixteen months"; etc... Stalcup (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

3)Proposed text for article: The officially declared cause of the crash (an internal fuel-air explosion) has been disputed by several high-level members of the original investigation, including senior NTSB investigator (Ret.) Hank Hughes, former TWA Chief Safety Officer Robert Young, and medical examiner Dr. Charles Wetli. In a petition to the NTSB dated June 18, 2013, these investigators concluded that a "preponderance of hard evidence, including radar and forensic evidence, combined with dozens of corroborating eyewitness accounts, refute the NTSB's probable cause determination for the crash of TWA Flight 800" and indicate that there was "a detonation outside the aircraft". [Petiton, pgs. 23,24] Stalcup (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

4)Proposed text for article: The NTSB had "priority over any investigation by another"[CFR] government agency; however FBI Assistant Director Lewis D. Schiliro insisted that the NTSB "not interview...any witness" to the crash because "the FBI usually restricts the release of the evidence it gathers during a criminal investigation."[NTSB Witness Factual Report, pg. 6] TWA Chief Safety Officer Captain Robert Young said "[w]e were never allowed to see [the wreckage] until...the FBI had looked at it and decided that we could see it." [documentary transcripts] Members of another invited party to the NTSB investigation--the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW)--say that some wreckage the FBI turned over to the NTSB was subsequently removed from the NTSB investigation by the FBI without proper documentation. According to Captain Young and Air Line Pilots Association investigator Jim Speer,[Documentary, transcripts] this included a component of the "leading edge of the right wing" [transcripts, pg. 6] that tested positive for explosives. Stalcup (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

5)Proposed text for article: NTSB investigator Bruce Magladry reviewed hundreds of FBI witness interview summaries compiled within a week of the crash and "concluded that the witness accounts of the accident were generally similar to one another". [NTSB Factual Report, pg. 7] The NTSB's original Eyewitness Group later reported that out of 102 eyewitnesses who reported the origin of a rising streak of light, "96 said that it originated from the surface." [original witness fact report 4A] Stalcup (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

6)Proposed text for article: "The Safety Board’'s examination of all of the available radar data revealed no...radar returns consistent with a missile or other projectile traveling toward the accident airplane." [Final Report, pg. 89] Missiles are small radar cross section targets however, and the NTSB determined in 2000 after firing three test missiles off the coast of Florida that there was "no identifiable ground track...associated with the test missiles". A radar site did record returns from the test missiles "after the time of missile selfdestruct". [NTSB visibility study, pg. 2]. After TWA 800 lost electrical power, "numerous new primary radar returns appeared near the accident airplane’'s last recorded radar position".[NTSB Final Report, pg. 89] A "cluster of these primary returns that were recorded 1/2 mile south of the aircraft's flight path" were not analyzed "in the NTSB’s final report or any other NTSB report or study" [2013 petition]. Former high-level investigators determined that these returns are "proof of [a] high velocity explosion". [2013 petition] The NTSB acknowledged that the velocity calculations the petitioners used to make that determination were sound, but the petitioners and NTSB disagree on whether or not the radar data was of "sufficient quality" [NTSB petition response] to rely on those calculations. Stalcup (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalcup (talk • contribs) 08:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Stalcup, I apologize again for the delay. Real life intervenes sometimes. I will review and give you some feedback. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Please move back to the TWA Flight 800 Talk page to comment/respond, which has the latest on the first 3 or 5 issues I raise, and which addresses some of your objections.
Stalcup (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Boeing 737 rudder issues

Good job making revisions and standing up for keeping that page! I watch a lot of "Air Disasters" on Smithsonian Channel, and I know how hard those investigators worked to find that flaw, how elusive it was, but how crucial it was once it was identified. The original investigation alone pulled together 3 incidents, and became the backdrop for a few more, some controversially. I was hoping someone like you would come along and input the industry research that I couldn't, but that I knew was there from the NTSB and other investigations all around the world concerning this issue. Thanks for standing up for the topic, and not bowing down to what I saw was some weight being thrown around at you. It doesn't matter if you have 5 edits or 5 million edits to your name, if a topic is a major contribution, especially when that other person pretty much admits they are unknowledgeable about the entire topic (in this case., aviation), it shouldn't just be thrown out without attempts to make it better. I'm glad a few other people voted to keep it, also, and that the final decision has been made to keep it and it's no longer on the chopping block. And thank you, also, for arguing that the NTSB reports were important sources for that article, in the face of the ridiculous argument you faced against them. That person should be forced to sit and watch all the episodes of "Air Disasters," or whatever it's called where they are (Mayday or""Air Investigations") to fully comprehend the importance of this topic. Great work! Kelelain (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Kelelain. I put a lot of work into that page so it'd be valuable to Wikireaders everywhere, and I'm glad it's appreciated. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

US airways flight 1549

" Problem in summary isn't mention of Teterboro, it's assertion of "closest airport"; they considered and then dismissed Teterboro, whether it was closest or not" Yup, absolutely. Britmax (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

LPD-28

Hello, you have changed the article USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD-28) to LPD-28. As the name is already confirmed by the Navy (see [1]), you might change the article accordingly. Thanks. --GDK (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

GDK, thanks for keeping an eye on things. However, it's not clear to me why that was added to that page, and it doesn't show up anywhere else on the Navy's website that I can see. It's particularly not yet listed in the Naval Vessel Register, which is the Navy's official ship inventory from date of authorization ([2]).There's also no press release yet from the Navy News Service or anything from Secretary Mabus' office. I'm not certain that one Navy page wasn't edited to reflect an unverified news report (or even the older version of the page on Wikipedia). I would prefer to wait for clearer confirmation, especially since there were also reports that a littoral combat ship would be named for the city. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
It is also not clear to me, why the name was not officially announced, but this has happened also in other cases. The NVR has unfortunately often a rather big time lag. But the name USS Fort Lauderdale has since been appeared in several US Navy publications (e.g. [3], [4]). Also the builder, Huntington Ingalls, refers to it by this name [5]. So i think, we can take for sure, that the name was assigned. --GDK (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
GDK, the last time I looked at the USCG credentialing list, it didn't have LPD-28's name on it, which was part of what influenced me. I agree with you, there are enough reliable sources to regard that as the ship's name. You're welcome to move it back, or I'll do it once I'm back at my desktop. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits of Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Shelbystripes. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Kudos for your contributions and cool demeanor in the face of suspicious and unreasonable attacks on your contributions. Good work on the TWA 800 and Flight 2286 talk pages. The demands made of you and threats to have you banned indefinitely were all entirely unwarranted; not a single edit of yours constituted harassment, and you're right about COMMONNAME. (google fight results: 805 vs 1230 in your favor.) You've screwed up at some point, probably (no one is perfect) but not in any of the edits I saw. You've avoided drama. Hope this star serves to shield you from any negative repercussions of your not getting defensive. Elvey(t•c) 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Shelbystripes. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop pinging me

or I report you at WP:ANI for harassment. Repeat- Don't ping me again. That means from any page or I will report you. Third and last warning....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes it is since you have been asked repeatedly not. Putting in a ping in what you write is a voluntary act not a mandatory act. Do not ping me ever again. There is no requirement for you to do so or to link to the USER in any way....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • WilliamJE, it is a voluntary act, and it is also a standard convention for replying to people. I am not required to keep track of each individual Wikipedia's users unique preferences on whether or not they like the things I'm allowed to do on here. I can't commit to that, and I can't pretend that I could. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
For fuck's sake, he is asking you to stop putting "User:WilliamJE" inside two pairs of square brackets, so stop putting "User:WilliamJE" inside two pairs of square brackets already. The relevant pages are obviously on his Watchlist and it is by no means at all a 'standard convention for replying to people' on Wikipedia. In my experience it is used very sparingly. YSSYguy (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
YSSYguy, I guess I would've understood that for that page, if he just said it was because he was watching that page. But it wasn't presented that way at all. It was "never do that again", and then falsely claiming harassment. "Never" is absurd, I'm not going to assume someone is watching every single page on Wikipedia, and I'm not going to promise to "never" do something I normally do. I respond well to reasonable requests, though. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
What a pathetic joke. False claims of harassment. You pinged me somewhere in the vicinity of six times after I asked you to stop. My first request[6] reads- 'Don't ping me every time. This page is on my watch list. Thank you.' So besides turning down a polite request, you now lie to another User. As I said, a pathetic joke....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I apologize. Your first request actually was more specific than I remembered when I replied above. I will say that "Don't ping me every time" didn't come across as "polite" (but I also had never had someone complain about me replying to them before, and I find it respectful for people to do it when responding to me so I know they're doing so). Like I said, it's how I normally post when I respond to a specific person. It's also still ridiculous to say "never ping me again" and I can't promise any such thing. But I understand your point better now. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have redirected the page Shelby, DO NOT REDIRECT IT AGAIN!!!!! Or you will be blocked from editing INDEFINITELY! MattChatt18 (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

MattChatt18, This threat/warning is uncalled for. I only reverted once on the name change, and at that time there was a consensus on the talk page to keep it at "Continental Express" (which included you at the time). I also said on the talk page I would respect a consensus decision. You've changed your opinion, others have weighed in. I still think this decision is wrong, but that doesn't mean I'm going to keep reverting. It's utterly inappropriate to threaten a ban (much less an indefinite one) to someone who has reverted an edit once and then discussed on the talk page. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If you don't stop pinging me, you will be blocked INDEFINITELY, now STOP IT or I WILL REPORT IT AS A THIRD VIOLATION OF WP:Harrassment. MattChatt18 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll note that this is the first time you've asked me to stop pinging you. But fine. I didn't realize that so many people get so deeply offended by being replied to. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, I have had enough of you, Shelby! I agree with WilliamJE and the other editors who decided to leave it as Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286. No-one supports your name change, now STOP THIS HARASSING RIGHT NOW or I WILL REPORT IT! MattChatt18 (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As I just said above, and I will say it again, I'm not going to keep reverting. Why you're yelling at me again, after I just said I won't keep reverting, I don't know. Also, what "other editors"? I agree that I'm outnumbered, but it looked like it was just you and WilliamJE outnumbering me on an actual vote. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, that's it! I'm reporting to an administrator! You will be sorry. MattChatt18 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I am responding to you on my own talk page. Please explain what part of this is wrong?? Shelbystripes (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Those two should've been banned for harassment. Seriously, I can't believe they got away with this. If you're interested obtaining a real consensus, I made a comment on the article's talk page. I have very little invested in Wiki, so I really don't care if those two adult children scream at me. I'm happy to see they didn't get anywhere with their petty reports. Thank you for showing them what an adult looks like. Telcia (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Apoligy

Shelby, I'm sorry for accusing you harassment on Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286. I will not do that again. MattChatt18 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

MattChatt18, thank you. I genuinely appreciate that. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Shelbystripes. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft occurrence doc

Hi Shelbystripes, when you have a minute could you please update the documentation at Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence, reviewing the current parameters and adding/removing the changed ones? As you can see, your proposed changes to the template have been adopted and are now live; well done. I could update the doc myself, but am not entirely sure I would capture and properly explain all the new features. Cheers. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, you can disregard my message – I have updated the documentation now. Regards. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Shelbystripes. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines Flight 89

Hi, Hope you are doing well, I wanted to thank you for your contributions to the article Delta Air Lines Flight 89. I really enjoyed reading it and it's unfortunate that some folks would have it rather deleted or merged. Even if it gets deleted or merged, I'm sure myself and others would continue to enjoy your future articles : )

--AGTepper (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

TWA Flight 841 (1979)

I missed the reference saying it won a Peabody. My mistake. I only saw the Youtube video. I also think a link to the video has no place in the article. We don't do it for Mayday/Air crash investigation episodes at Youtube....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shelbystripes/Archive_1&oldid=1072540559"