User talk:Fadedreality556

The supporting source is here. It says it that the aircraft is 23.2 years old. If we are talking about when the incident occurred, it would be approximately 23 years old. Mentioning "and 1 engineer" is redundant since he/she is part of the crew. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down and put 2 and 2 together. It was 22.65 years old. Fadedreality556 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry I have no idea what that means at all. Please clarify. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the supporting cite that the aircraft was 23 years old. If you have a source which indicates 22 years old, please list below. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. Scroll down and look at the first box. B. Here. The Preliminary report Fadedreality556 (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sites certification is expired so therefore the info on that site might be unreliable since there is nothing there. And if there is info, I have two sites, and you only have one. The cite you provided is initial and might change on final report. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a third cite I found which support my claim on what time the collision occured. Here CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, it was working at least 30 minutes ago. But of course. Fadedreality556 (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well even if it WAS working, i still have more evidence therefore keeping MY EVIDENCE on the article is now a must. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now please stop adding those info u got. Thank you CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen. Preliminary reports typically refer to initial or early findings, assessments, or data that are subject to further verification, analysis, or confirmation. These reports may not be final and could be subject to change based on additional information or investigation. This means the preliminary reports are not always fully reliable as they are based on initial findings and may not have undergone thorough verification or scrutiny. Planespotters and ASN are verified. Planespotters, ASN, and Avherald all agree with each other unlike the preliminary report. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who's right (I haven't looked at the sources yet), please could you both stop edit warring. Both of you are in breach of WP:3RR right now. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, But something that is confirmed in a preliminary report is, ATC transcripts, aircraft records, and time of occurrences. So I will keep doing my edits. Fadedreality556 (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on WP:EDITWAR, [c]laiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My defense is that I have three cites, he has only one, and those three cites are verified. I shared my cites with him and explained how preliminary reports are initial and unreliable. He refuses to believe and keeps on adding HIS information despite being cited by me. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on WP:EDITWAR, [c]laiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how a preliminary report can be unreliable for aircraft information. Here's an AAID Final Report involving 5Y-NNJ in another accident, the serial number is 172-65726, here's another source, another one, and one more. While it is true that preliminary reports can have incorrect information involving what actually happened and how, the point of preliminary reports is to report on preliminary information and give a summary of known facts. To call preliminary reports unreliable is inaccurate as while they can contain incorrect information, you wouldn't know that until the final report were released. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fadedreality556: Per these two edits, [1]; [2], it is shown that you've cited the Final Report in the article with the date, 3 April 2024, added in. However, this date does not appear to be mentioned in the AAID's preliminary report nor the investigation website. I was wondering, since you were the one who added it in, whether you recall where you got the date from. Best regards. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I might have typed it wrong, as that was when I added it I think. Fadedreality556 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...indeed--see Wikipedia:IMDB. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you keep changing images in infoboxes when the previous images were fine as well? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have kept on changing the photo because A. It is a better photo and B. It is closer to the accident date than the other picture. Fadedreality556 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. However, when dealing with aircraft infobox images, it's best to get a consensus first, as recommended by WP:AIR. I hope you understand. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, a consensus is not needed however. Fadedreality556 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When your edit has been reverted or if you're changing images on popular articles, such as UAL175, then yes you do in fact need consensus. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please find consensus first, aviation articles are plagued with image changes according to the tastes of individual editors, and consensus reduces churn. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with Acroterion's comments above. Please do not delete any images without giving a valid explanation. Also seek consensus with experienced editors before making deletions. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fadedreality556

I made an edit a couple weeks ago on the 1985 Manchester Airport disaster by switching out the cover image of the article for an image of the aftermath of the accident, it appears that you unexplainedly reverted it, if this was not you, I apologize profusely, but if it was you, why? Lolzer3k 00:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you had deleted it from the article, so I re-added it. Fadedreality556 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image of the plane in flight was deleted because there is already an image of the plane taxiing on a runway, which is why it was not readded, I believe 2 images of an aircraft are not needed. for now I will revert your edit. Lolzer3k 03:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other image was outdated, and I thought I removed that one to replace it, but turns out I didn't. I will keep the aftermath photo at the top of the infobox, but I will put the newer photo in the middle of the infobox instead of the outdated one. Fadedreality556 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that my edits to 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision are constructive, and are only disruptive to some users as my reasoning in the talk page states, most of the sources refer to it as "American Eagle Flight 5342". I am not in an edit war, only three constant reverts are needed to qualify, which you are familiar with, as you were blocked from edit warring on Safarilink Aviation Flight 053 in 2024. Fadedreality556 (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said earlier, there was consensus for "American Airlines" not "American Eagle" and you went against it. If you feel like a change needs to be made, please use the talk page to gain consensus. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to 1972 Las Palomas mid-air collision. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and needs more inline citations with references other than databases and contemporary news coverage. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Dominicana de Aviación Flight 401. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and needs continued coverage from reliable secondary sources other than databases (ASN) and the NTSB report. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fadedreality556,

Please review, carefully, WP:DRAFTIFY so you better understand when and when it is not appropriate to draftify a main space article. Draftification is only for newly created articles, not for articles that are more than a decade old. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had moved it because it wasn't notable and needed better sources. Fadedreality556 (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Engage01 (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at BOAC Flight 911, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and to see how to add references to an article. Also, please review WP:ENGVAR. DonIago (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As I look over this, I go back to the page history and realize that I just missed one citation on the aircraft part. Everything else was fine. I fixed some spelling, and organized stuff. I will be reverting your revert and adding the missing citation. Fadedreality556 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:ENGVAR as I noted earlier; you did not fix spelling but rather changed British English to American English, which in this case was inappropriate since the article is about a British subject. DonIago (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that, as it completely slipped my mind. I read WP:ENGVAR, but then just completely disregarded it when editing it. Once again, I apologize. Fadedreality556 (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; thank you for adding sources! DonIago (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Fadedreality556!

I noted that you changed the title of the article World Airways Flight 30 to World Airways Flight 30H. I moved the page back to World Airways Flight 30 and here's why.

I had a word with the ASN regarding this and Ranter replied that the NTSB concurrently made an error in the report and successive recommendations to the FAA regarding the flight number.

Per the report, the callsign was "WORLD 30 HEAVY" where "HEAVY" is just to let the ATC know that the aircraft exceeds the MTOW capacity of 136,000 tons and requires more separation. However, the NATO phonetic alphabet (which is what the flight number depends on) lists "Hotel" for "H" and not "Heavy". Avianca Flight 052 (see [3]) is not called "Avianca Flight 052H".

I also noted another government document outside the FAA and the NTSB, referring to this flight as "Flight 30" (see: [4]).

Thanks! GalacticOrbits (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this is just like the requested move for Arrow Air Flight 1285 to Arrow Air Flight 1285R, British Airtours Flight 28 to British Airtours Flight 28M, etc (It was named British Airtours Flight 28M at one point before being changed again). The reason for these changes were because of the final report after the investigations. Fadedreality556 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your train of thought, but in the case of British Airtours Flight 28M, the callsign was "BEATOURS TWO EIGHT MIKE". "MIKE" is indeed the NATO phonetic alphabet for the letter M. The callsign for Arrow Air Flight 1285R was "BIG-A NINE FIVE ZERO" or the registration of the aircraft and not the flight number. Since the report mentioned "Arrow Air Flight 1285R", and other government documents also reflect the same (see [5], [6], [7], [8]), it should be correct. However, in the case of World Airways Flight 30, the callsign was "WORLD THIRTY HEAVY" and not "WORLD THIRTY HOTEL" (where "HOTEL" is the NATO phonetic alphabet alternative for the letter H) with some other contemporary sources (see: [9], [10], [11]) all refer to it "Flight 30". Hence, I believe the flight number is 30 and not 3OH. Thanks! GalacticOrbits (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From your explanation, I do understand, and will stop changing the title. Fadedreality556 (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]