User talk:Username006

This is Username006's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Gimli Glider, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please stop moving this page. Meters (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exactly sure how to add a citation in an infobox since I'm new and that's why I've added the website link to Business Insider if you view the history of the page in what I've edited. I'll be glad if you could add that to the information to what I had added earlier. Thank you. @Username006: Username006 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some links you may find helpful to the welcome section below - sorry about the belated welcome; regarding your edit of the infobox, I do not find it helpful, so I will not add the citation, sorry; also, regarding minor edits, please see

Hi Username006! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will surely read the minor edit and acordingly make changes in the future. @Username006: Username006 (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move long-established titles to new locations without talkpage discussion and consensus. Bold moves of that kind are almost always reverted. Acroterion (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: This editor just moved[1] from Dominicana DC-9 air disaster to Air Dominicana Flight 609 without first going to the talk page. The move was subsequently reverted and the article move protected. I don't know if you count the above as an official warning but I thought I'd let you know....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an official warning - don;t mak undiscussed page moves, please Username006. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: First of all, why did you bring an uninvolved administrator into the scene when I did not persist anymore on any page as you said? Secondly, I just did that move once because there was a source that I personally thought would be helpful. However, I am discussing with you on the talk page about the request of the move by bringing sources to you. Please do not unnecessarily call someone who is not involved and don't try to support the name of Dominicana DC-9 air disaster as you can keep to the name unless I give reliable and decent sources. Username006 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC) @Username006:[reply]

The issue of your page moves has been raised more than once. I raised it. Acroterion then told you not make such undiscussed page moves. Then Andrewgprout raised it. There's nothing wrong with WilliamJE asking for clarification seeing as how you are still making such moves. Meters (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: Firstly, the air canada move was done by me because I was inexperienced. Secondly, if you even bothered to read the page, you will see that Andrewgpout was not listening to me in the talk page. Third, WilliamJE told me that he will ask an uninvolved administrator if I persist with edits I do which I did not after the warning. I even gave a source to them which I personally thought may be helpful but it wasn't. I have been discussing in the talk page about the move. Unnecessary raising of discussions. I request you not to do it unnecessarily. @Username006: Username006 (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Username has done another page move[2], since reverted[3], since your two warnings above....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shall reiterate my warning - don't move articles without obtaining consensus. If this persists, you mat face sanctions. Additionally, complaining about other editors who have asked administrators to look at your edits is not a vert good way to gain credibility. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: He's done it again. This time at Cathay Pacific Flight 700Z bombing. Here's their move[4], and the subsequent reversion[5]. Not by me FYI. Read their edit summary. Username thinks they were forced to do it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE:The reason why I did that is because I had already asked for a move 5 days earlier and I was waiting patiently. However, I was getting no response. So I had to forcefully move the page so that someone would respond. And again this Andrewpgout is purposely reverting my changes and this is his habit. If he was even active on the page then couldn't he have responded? He never responds and always reverts my moves. He was doing the same thing in the talk page in Japan Airlines Flight 1628. I must report him but I don't get the time to and please stop being pointy at me evenafter asking for a page move. I can confidentally say that neither you nor Andrew even bothered to read the talk page. Username006 (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you move another page, "forcefully" or not, I will block you. Silence doesn't give you license to act. Acroterion (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Had I not committed the move, nothing would've happened. You yourself tell me what should've I done if you feel I'm exploiting Wikipedia. Your attitude is rude and you are not giving any response on a solution and rather just blocking someone from moving a page to create a bigger fuss. These moves are not just for you. It is for the readers. I followed your instructions about a request on a page move and yet it doesn't seem to help much. Username006 (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing would have happened" is an acceptable outcome. You didn't follow my instructions - you made a request and then moved the article without consensus from other editors. If you don't get a response or consensus, the correct action is to do nothing. Acroterion (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Okay, Thanks but should I start using this watch page feature? I guess it at least notifies editors if I am about to make a page move. Username006 (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: They have done a page move again[6] that has been reverted[7]. The reversion wasn't done by me FYI. @Andrewgprout: the editor who did....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: Please try to understand, every move is not a bold move. That was quite an obvious error. Asking such stupid questions for a request is not ideal. Here, 1996 Africa Air crash is invalid. Doesn't 1996 Africa Air AN-32 crash sound a lot more proper? Please do not take such stupid reasons to block me unneccessarily. What do you think of this move then?:[8]. Even they didn't ask and yet they aren't banned. And I already know that Andrew has this habit of continuously reverting my edits. You, Andrew and acroterion are annoying me to my limits. Username006 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the correct form for any intentional link to a disambiguation page (such as Flight 1 / 001, Flight 191, Flight 901A) is to use the version of the title that contains '(disambiguation)', even if it is a redirect. So, to add the DAB page Flight 101, use Flight 101 (disambiguation). This lets readers and editors know that this is an intentional link rather than an error that needs to be fixed (wp:INTDABLINK, if you want to read more). Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do add (disambiguation) after every link which has multiple redirects to different pages. Maybe I have forgotten on one of them. Thanks for letting me know. I will be more attentive and add disambiguation. Username006 (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been adding DAB pages as (for example) [[Flight 901|Flight 901 (disambiguation)]]. That's not going through the '(disambiguation)' redirect. It should be listed simply as Flight 901 (disambiguation). Leschnei (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you reply to a message, please use some form of the {{ping}} template (like {{ping|Leschnei}}. That lets the other editor know that you have replied - I don't usually follow other editors' talk pages. Leschnei (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't use slash ("/") in disambiguation page's title (as you moved pages to "Flight 91 / 091", "Flight 1 / 001", "Flight 6 / 006", "Flight 7 / 007", "Flight 11 / 011", and "Flight 72 / 072"). "A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms" (see this). "When a disambiguation page combines several similar terms, one of them must be selected as the title for the page" (see this), and other similar terms can be made as redirect pages to the disambiguation page. For your cases, Flight 91, Flight 1, Flight 6, Flight 7, Flight 11, and Flight 72 should be the disambiguation-page titles, while Flight 091, Flight 001, Flight 006, Flight 007, Flight 011, and Flight 072 can be direct pages to relevant disambiguation pages. For more information, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I won't add a slash in these pages. Thank you for correcting me!

Thank you for your contributions. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please gain consensus before making any more bold page moves. None of your page moves have been particulary well accepted. Reading WP:PRECISE among other advice might help. Andrewgprout (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because I asked earlier and no one was responding so I had to forcefully make you respond. Also, you have answered nothing in the talk page where I'm continuously asking again and again. Please find Relevant discussion here.Username006 (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You gave been asked not to do that already 2 weeks ago. Please do not do that. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Canada move was by me as I was inexperienced. However for this move, I asked in advance in the talk page about a move in a friendly manner in the talk page however no one was responding so I had to forcefully move the page to let someone know I had done an edit. Andrewgpout moved the page back saying that I'm doing another bold move in the history and still NO replies in the talk page. I asked him on his personal talk page as well but still no response. This is why I did the bold move. @Username006: Username006 (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Username006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  WikiHannibal (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely I do! Unfortunately, I don't get much time but it is still quite enjoyable! Username006 (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are just some of the many discussions-

• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name?
• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question
• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203
• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster
• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_705 Go to section Names of victims and survivors.

Plus see ANI discussions here[9] and here[10]. Most of those discussions took place in the last two years. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft involved.

The person who supposedly missed the plane was removed on the basis that it wasn't referenced. Editor @Ahunt: may want to chime in....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Basically lists of non-notable people are non-notable and also we have the policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Can we put this in a guideline or a user subpage so that the Username006 talk page does not have to be the go to place for this consensus? Jay ^(Talk) 14:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: What I normally do is cut and paste the above links into somebody's talk page like I did here or in this edit[11] today. You were posting from RFD and asking for guidance. So I directed you here instead....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is discussion going on, it is you that should stop changing other detail to support your view of the world. please leave such detail as the status quo. which in this case is not how it is now after your edits.

Also it is relatively uncool to comment on every little detail being added to a discussion it is doing your argument more harm than benefit. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also - You should be careful editing while not logged in which you have done in the last couple of days. It can appear that you are hiding edits in this situation , it is best not to create such an impression by always logging in. Also an ip is way more identifiable than your username.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are having a discussion on the talk page on Avianca Flight 52. Let's wait and see. I'm not commenting on every little detail. It's you who are following me for every little detail. It is also not that the Avianca page is exclusive to that. Other pages are also with that trait so we must edit it. Thank you for the third tip btw. Username006 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah right. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Air France Flight 66. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was mentioned in the final report that it was AFR066. So does the callsign. Please check the move discussion on the talk page of Avianca Flight 52. it is the same. Air France's own website mentions it as AFR066: [12] Username006 (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't what are you talking about, but why would you still editing and change the name? It's their proper name for the flight number. Yes I click that website and mentions as AFR066, but it's just a callsign. The complete flight number Air France Flight 66 don't have 0, as for their callsign, they have. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstone2.0: Incorrect. First of all, half of your grammar is incorrect so it is hard to understand what you mean to say. The callsign is Airfrance 066. The flight number is AFR066 through the final report. That is the ICAO number which is AFR066 nad not the callsign. The IATA is AF066 as said by ASN here: [13]. I see no reason why to keep it as Air France Flight 66. Username006 (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you take WP:PRECISION into account when you consider moving a title on Wikipedia. Your edits suggest that you simply do not understand the balance that is required in Wikipedia article titles. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewgprout: Please try to understand, every move is not a bold move. That was quite an obvious error. Asking such stupid questions for a request is not ideal. Here, 1996 Africa Air crash is invalid. Doesn't 1996 Africa Air AN-32 crash sound a lot more proper? Please do not take such stupid reasons to block me unneccessarily. What do you think of this move then?:[14]. Even they didn't ask and yet they aren't banned. You, William and acroterion are annoying me to my limits. Username006 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple: stop making undiscussed page moves. Stop calling other editors "stupid." If this behavior continues, blocks will get longer or indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never called editors stupid. I only called their moves stupid. Obvious errors in the pages don't require page discussions. Don't try to act smart as if you know everything and interpret my statements differently. Don't try to take advantage of your administrative policies. Here is another move to prove that my statement is correct: [15] Username006 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admin comment - see section above and previous sections with warnings about obtaining consensus for page moves before doing them. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:Already gone through it. Please unblock me. A very stupid reason to block me. Username006 (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC) @Acroterion:I never called editors stupid. I only called their moves stupid. Obvious errors in the pages don't require page discussions. Here is another move to prove that my statement is correct: [17] Username006 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:These are quite obvious errors in pages. No need for a discussion here. Did you even go through the link above? Username006 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat: stop making undiscussed page moves. What you believe to be erroneous may not be considered so by other editors, and you need to seek their agreement. And stop digging yourself a deeper hole. Acroterion (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:Read the first statement of this:[18]. Username006 (talk).03:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Please don't sit quiet like this. Accept your mistake and unblock me. Username006 (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Please don't try to act smart by ignoring my messages. Accept your mistake and unblock me. Username006 (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:I repeat, don't act smart. Username006 (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I'm unhappy with your current ignorance of my messages. Username006 (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Please respond. I know that you are doing this on purpose. Username006 (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:@WilliamJE:@Andrewgprout: Is anyone even going to respond? I'm not liking this. Username006 (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I try to be calm, but they have been troubling me too much to the limits of personal abuse. I know that they are purposely not responding because they were actively responding earlier, but when I gave them a good reason, they aren't responding back. I can confidentally say that they are teaming up on me. I do not support personal abuse. It is really infuriating for me. And it's not like I've been rude to them that much apart from the beginning, when I had just joined. Username006 (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are volunteers who sleep from time to time. You wasted your opportunity to persuade me that you understood why you were blocked and would address your behavior while I was still on WP. Your conduct since then has done nothing to change my mind. You are closing in on an indefinite block with all the pinging and accusations. I'm going to work in a little while, and you won't hear from me then either, so don't bother pinging. Please reflect on your conduct and respond only when you can address your behavior, rather than accusing others of causing your problems. Acroterion (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(uninvolved non-admin comment). You have been told MULTIPLE TIMES DO NOT MOVE PAGES WITHOUT CONSENSUS (as can be seen above). At this point your behaviour comes across as WP:IDHT, I wouldn't be surprised if you get an indef block if this continues. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I forgive my error. But, if there are rather obvious errors in the page titles where the flight number is not given although it is clear what was it, these pages don't require any such consensus for page moves such as the one on Centurion Air Cargo Flight 164. Users should be given the same rights, if they are in the same class altogether. Also, if you can track all of my reverted page moves so well, why not do it for my requests on page moves and talk to me there? Isn't that better? Especially for Andrew and William. This is also a reason why I do bold moves especially on unpopular pages because I get no response if I provide a message, but when I try to do a move, then Andrew reverts it, William reports it, and you block me. Username006 (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple. Don't move pages without clear consensus, and that consensus cannot be determined by you. Until you understand this, you will continue to encounter difficulty. You've had many warnings not to do that again, it should not come as a surprise to you that ignoring those warnings resulted in a block. You are also advised to reconsider how you interact with other editors - telling people they have "stupid" reason for doing things won't make anybody inclined to help you or to cooperate with you. Acroterion (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Username, you are lucky that this is only a temporary block. Tone it down. Drop the personal attacks, and stop making unreasonable demands of administrators. This very talk page is becoming a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it needs to stop. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Username, please follow the advice given by both Acroterion and Drmies in the two posts above this. It is good advice....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not ignoring any of these warnings, but again, obvious errors in the title means it should be moved. This corresponds with this as well:[19] and [20]. Okay Drmies, got it. Thanks! Not going to abuse other Wikipedians or their moves. Username006 (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked precisely because you were ignoring warnings. Your confidence in your personal judgment isn't supported by the evidence. You are not sole arbiter of what is "obviously wrong" on Wikipedia. IAR is to be invoked sparingly and in unusual circumstances, not as a matter of routine or as an end run around consensus. If you are not willing to abide by Wikipedia's editing process, you may lose editing privileges permanently. Acroterion (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Username006 (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewgprout: @WilliamJE: @Acroterion: Here is something that you may be interested in: [21]

@Andrewgprout: @WilliamJE: @Acroterion: Here is something else that you may be interested in: [22]

@Andrewgprout: @WilliamJE: @Acroterion: So if I ask you to participate in a move discussion, you will not respond. But when I make a corresponding page move, you will respond to every second. A conflict is not supposed to be resolved in an aggressive manner by creating unnecessary fights. I request you to discuss in the talk page and not stay idle. And if you can track my 'bold' page moves, then why not do it for the talk pages, where I request a page move? That is a better way to resolve a conflict. Let's be friends from now on and try to get over this. What do you say? Username006 (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can save yourself a lot of trouble by just not moving pages, and by not making demands of other editors. However much it may irk you to see a title that you don't like, just let it be. Editing is not compulsory. I am acting as an administrator and will not participate in move discussions anyway, my concern is with your conduct, not content. Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Why should I just let it be? I'm improving Wikipedia. So you will participate if I do a bold move to that page but not for improving that page? That isn't correct either. Username006 (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because your page moves have been consistently contested by other editors, and you've shown no sign of understanding that you are expected to work constructively with other editors on article titles - your confidence in the superiority of your judgment appears to be misplaced. So, for maybe the fourth time, don't do page moves. As an administrator, I deal with behavior, not content, and your behavior is the issue here. That is the difference - I'm restricting your edits due to problems in the past that show no sign of improving. I cannot and will not adjudicate article titles. Acroterion (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: But you said earlier to ask for a page move but that isn't exactly working out although safer. I would strongly support improving Wikipedia. Because I have never got a chance to work constructively with others because none of the are working constructively with me as you can see in my page move request. WP:Ignore All Rules says it all. It's okay of you are an admin or not and neither Andrew nor William are partcipating in the talk page discussion and neither of them are admins as far as I know. Username006 (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask, but you must accept that other editors may not agree, or may not wish to engage you. That doesn’t give you permission to do what you want, and you may not demand participation. IAR is to be used sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances, not as an excuse to have your own way. It was originally formulated to reassure new editors that precise formatting was not essential for the inexperienced - it doesn’t mean “do what you want.” Your preferred titles aren’t grounds for IAR. Acroterion (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that both of you were fighting for an edit in the page of British Airways Flight 9. This was getting on the verge of an edit war. Let's just not do that. Username seems correct and it is rather well known at this point that the flight number was BA009. KlientNo.1 (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I reverted this edit [23] because it did not make any sense. The bombing was of the aeroplane not the town. What happened to the town was a disaster as stated - certainly not a bombing. More care needs to be taken in changing things, particularly established detail on Wikipedia, you need a real good reason to change something such as this and given your history of not getting your changes accepted by the community I think you just need to slow down and think about what you are doing more. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewgprout: I'm just trying to put spacing in between the two words and in the article it says it's the Lockerbie bombing but in the infobox it says it is the Lockerbie disaster. Why does every edit make no sense to you? 05:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Username006 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by Tailstrikes has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanna let you know that your edit [24], images have been reverted back for possible copyright issues. Please read WP:IMAGES for more info. Thanks! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But really what is wrong with it? Username006 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Remy Dallot owns the copyright for this image and it is not free to use. Also it is not a better image. Images, particularly info box images, need a very good normally discussed reason to change. Please make sure you include a real reason in edit summaries, simply saying this one is better is not going to be accepted, you need to say clearly why it is encyclopaediclly better. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are becoming more disruptive, your recent edits are WP:SYNTHESIS and show a mania about adding flight numbers everywhere. it is quite possible that in many instances a flight number is not something generally known or reported in general Secondary sources so care should be used in adding such detail.Andrewgprout (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Stop adding supposed flight numbers unless they are quoted in a reliable source (not planecrash.info and not necessarily the ASN either, which seems to have the same habit of putting the call sign in the 'Flightnumber' field). Deeday-UK (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that they have a habit? It is a reasonable move. Is this a title name or something? No. Username006 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than argue every little detail (and simply saying NO is not really a proper discussion) you should listen to the sensible advise of Deeday-UK (above) and other experienced Wikipedia editors are telling you. In this case you are making stuff up and that is not accetable on Wikipedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Username006 (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes seriously really.Andrewgprout (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So experienced editors are always correct and inexperienced editors are incorrect? I'm not making stuff up as you say. ASN, baaa-acro and planecrashinfo all mention it. Username006 (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

006, with this edit you have gone over the line by not assuming good faith in another's edits [[25]]. The edit summary of "Undid revision 1042778708 by Andrewgprout (talk)obviously trying to remove the flight number." is simply not acceptable. For your information because you do not really seem to understand English particularly well the "of" in the sentence does not make any sense and should be removed to make the sentence gramatically better. The gr in my edit summary is short for grammar that should have told you why I was making this edit. I believe what you should do is revert your revert before it does you some harm which it will. And if you continue making (quite possibly unintentional) disruptive edits it is likely you will be prevented from editing Wikipedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But then see for yourself, you are reverting so many edits of mine so I will obviously get annoyed. I have lost count on how many edits you have reverted of mine. If you don't do such things why would I get annoyed? And from where did Gr come from? There was nothing shouting out Grammar there. You just removed the boldness in the flight number. Reason why I had made it bold is to make it consistent. See for yourself on the page of Dominicana Flight 603. WilliamJE didn't seem to have good faith in me either. You have already gone over the limit by reverting so many of my edits. And you are already known to revert many edits after seeing your talk page. Username006 (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted many of your edits but all of these reverts have been in response to building the encyclopaedia. I have not reverted all of your edits by any definition, as I did not revert this one I mearly fixed a gramatical error. I expect you to revert your last edit on this page restoring the page to its correct gramatical form. If this does not happen I will have to think seriously about asking ANI about whether your contibution here is positive or negative. Nothing in your answer above fills me with hope that you understand or want to understand questions of your competence. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that you are fixing grammatical errors and then you say 'Encyclopaedia', 'contibution', 'mearly', 'gramatical'? There is a reason to everything. I never said that you have reverted all of my edits. Building the encyclopedia is not justifiable. You never once talked positive to me. Removing the boldness and 'of' didn't seem grammatical to me. Nothing fills me with confidence either that you understand or want to understand questions of your competence. Username006 (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and understand MOS:BOLD, it is clear that the bold in your latest edit is not supported by this advice. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made it consistent with the other accidents, therefore it is a correct edit. Username006 (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andrew; the MOS is pretty clear on the reasons for using bold text, and for the sake of consistency is not one of them. – ².O.^Boxing 22:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Formosa Airlines, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is not a disruptive edit! I'm just making it consistent with the other flight numbers given. Why are you constantly poking me without seeing my reason and just reverting my edits? Username006 (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you, you have admitted several times that you are angry and that comes through in your edits. Your edits are being reverted by many editors because of their content or value or form not because anyone is getting at you. It is often hard to see the reason in your explanations of your edits, simply saying the opposite is not a proper discussion. An example of this is your edit directly above, your argument about consistency is invalid, arguing that there are examples of something being wrong elsewhere is not an argument, a discussion about this must address the established Manual of style for adding bold typeface. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In why, what, how is it invalid? You can't simply say it is invalid. Wikipedia isn't the place for you either as again, seeing through your talk page your edits ae also being reverted enough to engage in an edit war. And I'm not saying the opposite for everything. Username006 (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing your recent conduct, "you won't agree with me so I have to do it anyway" isn't a valid reason for doing anything on Wikipedia. I've proposed a formal move ban at ANI, since you haven't taken my advice, but given that you've branched out into your own personal interpretation of the MoS, I'm weighing stronger sanctions,including a formal site ban if you can't or won't listen to others. Acroterion (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry for my boldness. I will follow. Username006 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of your own move request here [[26]] was very inapproprate, particularly since any consensus was not absolutely obvious. Such closures should be made by someone not involved with initiating or commenting on the request. Ideally you should now revert all your edits related to the move and let the move request take its course. If this does not happen I will be forced to ask for a Move Review. The former option will always workout better for your standing in the community. Thanks Andrewgprout (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay done. Username006 (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per this community discussion, you are banned from moving any page on English Wikipedia. You are not restricted from opening nor participating in requested move discussions, but you may not close move discussions nor enact their results, under any circumstances. Violations of this restriction will be enforced with blocks, and may lead to more severe sanctions.

This sanction is indefinite, which means only that it will not expire. If you would like to appeal, you should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard. If you are considering an appeal, you may find the advice at WP:NICETRY helpful.

Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Username006 (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may not alter closes that you have participated in or initiated, with which you disagree. I have blocked you for a week. Any further boundary testing of this kind will result in an indefinite block - this is not a game in which you may explore ways to get around community restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with Acroterion's block here. The re-opening of a move discussion was a clear violation of their restriction....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly everything on this talkpage concerns your extensive history of disruption concerning naming and moves. How much more do you need to hear to understand not to do this? And it's a poor idea to refer to someone as "dude" in an unblock request, especially when they're probably 50 years older than you are. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:ANI#Close reverted for context. Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it is not related to this at all. And I'm 23 FYI. And also, Andrew a 'reliable source' said that consensus is not clearly visible. Now for the opposite reason it is? Also William, stop mocking me on Acroterion's talk page. Username006 (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on JetBlue. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: I was about to collaborate after the 2nd revert. But I got busy in some other work. Username006 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remove your edit at the page of United Airlines fleet as some of other airline fleet page don't have any See also section. If you wish to edit back, please talk to Talk:United Airlines fleet for your reason. Thank you! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you know later on. Thank you for your kind understanding. Username006 (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I'm fine with your edits @Cornerstone2.0:. Username006 (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

glad you understand! Happy editing! :DDCornerstone2.0 (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstone2.0: Thanks! Same to you! Username006 (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I discovered that you have uploaded Final Report for this accident on 11th December 2021. Unfortunately, link doesn't seem to work properly right now (20th January 2022). Could you maybe upload it again? I've been looking for this report for the longest time. Kind regards from Pelagiusz Pelagiusz (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will look into it. Thanks! Username006 (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelagiusz: I have archived the link here: [27] Username006 (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Username006,

When you find yourself in a conflict at ANI, I think it's important to follow the Law of holes...state your side of the dispute, answer, honestly, any questions editors ask of you and stop digging yourself into a big, gigantic hole that you will find it difficult to get out of. Do not try to reply to every comment that is made so you end up repeating yourself. Let go of trying to "win". If you have made a mistake, admit it and vow, honestly, not to make the same mistake again. And mean it.

Often, the best result in a noticeboard complaint is to not feed the fire and let the dispute die down. If there are other problems that you see that are going on between you and another editor, wait another day to try to resolve them. Don't try to get the attention off yourself by throwing around accusations. And if you do find yourself blocked, it doesn't have to last forever, accept it and go work on other Wikimedia project in the meantime.

Most long-time editors, myself included, have been brought to ANI at some point, and it is survivable. Just try to learn from the experience and don't repeat the behavior that caused someone to file the complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the now archived report, it was suspected that the account 使用者名前0006 was related to you. checkusers and administrators do not have any conclusive way of determining who is behind an account. This means that when linking users in all but the very few cases we have to go off their edits (and some technical information if CU is run). In this case the similar username, the overlap of the pages you edit and that you have made edits at zhwiki (the Chinese Wikipedia) I saw there was enough evidence to at least mark that as being "suspected" to you. Although the checkuser that I ran suggested that you were not related, it is easy enough to use a VPN or proxy and some of the analysis on the 使用者名前0006 gave an indication that proxies may have been used.

On a side note, based on your unblock request, do you seem to not be disputing that the other accounts in the report are owned by you?

Finally, ca@wikimedia.org is not the best place to direct this concern. If you wish to appeal this checkuser block/the checkuser check to a "higher authority" you should email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Nope, those other accounts are owned by me although I have abandoned their incorrect use even before this dispute about me started. Thanks for notifying me to use arbcom-en@wikimedia.org and not ca@wikimedia.org. Also, if possible, could you link me the contributions at zhwiki? Again, it is not a smart idea to create a translatably "similar" username and make page moves, I don't any form of proxy and I myself do not know any Chinese, so why would I make edits over there if I didn't know the language? I have made edits there but those were merely image changes.Username006 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

w:zh:Special:用户贡献/Username006, noting that at least one your edits either needed google translate or knowing Chinese to understand what was in the comment. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 02:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Yes, I have used Google Translate to identify what that comment meant in British Airways 5390 page. Username006 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. As you have emailed arbcom-en@wikimedia.org it is likely your unblock request above will remain open until they or you post onwiki that the email has been dealt with. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 02:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: So I received an e-mail from ca@wikimedia.org stating that:

Thank you for reaching out to us. We are sorry to hear of the situation. Respecting the Wikimedia communities' self-governance, the Wikimedia Foundation does not intervene in or overturn community-imposed blocks. This means that we are unable to lift the block on your account. If you wish to have your block appealed, you are advised to follow the appropriate community process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks Best regards, Tom Paine Trust & Safety Team Wikimedia Foundation

I've yet to receive a mail from the other e-mail address, but this e-mail is worthless as it has been interpreted incorrectly. Username006 (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom (arbcom-en@wikimedia.org) will likely give a better response but they may take a little time to respond. ca@wikimedia.org is likely to have read that the email is about a block made by an administrator and would have then said "it's not in our purview". Arbcom has the purview to look at this block and the situation surrounding it. To the arbitrators, I am happy to discuss the tagging and block of User:使用者名前0006 alongside the checkuserblocks I've applied to the other accounts. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Sure and thanks! Username006 (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

arbcom says:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your message, the contents of which have been circulated to the committee for consideration. In principle, accounts that mimic the behaviour of other accounts, which have been blocked for, amongst other reasons, disruption, are blocked as related to the original account. If we believe further information from you would be helpful, we will be in touch. Please ensure that arbcom-en@wikimedia.org is in the "to" or "cc" field of any reply you make to this message; messages sent only to me or another individual arbitrator may not be read.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username006 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Username006. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:UPS Airlines Flight 61, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Username006. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "UPS Airlines Flight 61".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Username006. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2014 Barcelona–El Prat runway incursion, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Username006. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Aeroméxico Flight 945, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Username006. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Aeroméxico Flight 945".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Username006. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Atlantic City Airlines Flight 977, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Username006. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:American Airlines Flight 102, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Username006. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "American Airlines Flight 102".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:CF-TIW Air Canada DC-8 1970.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]