User talk:AtticusDutch

Welcome

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate this, and I have a question. Do you just follow new people and help them or is just for specific people? AtticusDutch (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it's alright if he harasses me? AtticusDutch (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being harassed, your edits are ambiguous, unsourced and disruptive, and you are plainly and blatantly harassing editors who are cleaning up after you. Slow down, and listen to other editors. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Crossair Flight 498. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Info Is wrong!!!! AtticusDutch (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Air Disasters: Lost in Translation AtticusDutch (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm doing is correcting the incorrect info. AtticusDutch (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So. Let me calm down. Anyway, As you can clearly see, I am new at this. Now, if you can help out with the citations (nice jet) , that would be amazing. Also, if you can actually give my info some consideration, you would see that this all comes straight from the NTSB report. Thank you. Please understand that I am not purposely trying to be a rude or mean person. Your help friendship is appreciated. -AtticusDutch AtticusDutch (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the links that are at the top of the page. They cover appropriate sourcing, verifiability, no original research, and the conduct expected from contributors. Wikipedia isn't a place for you to post your own opinions, or what you personally speculate to be true. If I see another attempt to harass somebody for correcting problems you've introduced into an article, you'll be blocked. Slow down, learn the rules for contributing, and listen to experienced editors. Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. AtticusDutch (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A good source is labeled in the Wikipedia page as what? The little number that corresponds to a link under references or what? AtticusDutch (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 2 months. I am trying to create a page on a ship my grandfather served on during WW2 because it had some interesting facts, but I can't. USS LSM-54 AtticusDutch (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? AtticusDutch (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nothing. AtticusDutch (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide you are ready to work collaboratively with others (acknowledging policies especially reliable sources and no original research, you can indicate so in an unblock request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, does this count as an unblock request? AtticusDutch (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No; short answer, you'll want to copy-paste this template:

- to the bottom of this page, replacing the "Insert your reason" text with a reason. If you take the time to read WP:UNBLOCK and follow the suggestions there, you're more likely to be unblocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AtticusDutch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

subst: 2nd chanceAtticusDutch (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

?

You'll want to be much more specific; see Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Give_a_good_reason_for_your_unblock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AtticusDutch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for, will not continur to cause damage and disruption, will make useful and factual contributions, and do apologise for previous actions. Thank you both. AtticusDutch (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The suggestion that you copy/paste the syntax for the unblock request did not extent to the elements of the argument you needed to make to the reviewing administrator. But, great copying. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This block is no longer necessary. I do apologise and realize that my actions under duress were wrong, pointless, not intelligent, and rude. I do hope to be reinstated because I know of many articles that have incorrect information and/or need *relevant* content added. I understand that what happened was wrong, and of course how difficult it is to issue an apology digitally, and to operate Wikipedia on a mobile device. Please be understanding. Thank you all. AtticusDutch (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC) Sincerely yours, AtticusDutch[reply]

I do understand that just because I agree with neither someone's college football team or their politics, which policies really irk me, I hope that this will not cause conflict between us. AtticusDutch (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what "duress" means? You weren't under duress. Please specify what you think is "wrong" - you've shown a tendency to confuse your opinions and personal analysis with factual reporting. As for your second comment, it makes no sense, and we're not interested in who or what irks you. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This block is no longer necessary. I do apologise and realize that my actions were wrong, (ie usage of opinions and uncited and unsourced material, which I will change), pointless, not intelligent, and rude. I do hope to be reinstated because I know of many articles that have incorrect information and/or need *relevant* content added. I understand that what happened was wrong, and of course how difficult it is to issue an apology digitally. Please be understanding. Thank you all. AtticusDutch (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acroterion, I'm not really feeling it, but then again, a reblock is easy to do. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Denies, thank you. AtticusDutch (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid autocorrect AtticusDutch (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt 2: User:Drmies, thank you. AtticusDutch (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So...? I'm just waiting. AtticusDutch (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week. I hope you have had your fun. AtticusDutch (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC) cmt[reply]

You can note that your block is "indefinite", so it doesn't expire after a week or two. If you want to be unblocked you need to follow the procedure and make a solid case for yourself. - Ahunt (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not going to get you unblocked. We're looking for a sincere change of heart, which your recent comments don't reflect. We're volunteers, and most of us have more pressing concerns at the moment. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't reflect?!

This block is no longer necessary. I do apologise and realize that my actions were wrong, (ie usage of opinions and uncited and unsourced material, which I will change), pointless, not intelligent, and rude. I do hope to be reinstated because I know of many articles that have incorrect information and/or need *relevant* content added. I understand that what happened was wrong, and of course how difficult it is to issue an apology digitally. Please be understanding. Thank you all. AtticusDutch (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply copying your previous request with the "don't reflect?!" heading immediately following the demands of earlier today doesn't convince me of any great amount of sincerity or understand ingconcerning your previous edits to articles or your interactions with other editors. I do not support unblocking. Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So then, what do you want me to do? Clearly you can't read feelings. AtticusDutch (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We expect you to express an understanding of your unacceptable behavior in a mannner that indicates that you're sincerely interested in editing the encyclopedia in conformance to policy and the expectations of the community. If you keep alternating between copy/pasted repetition and bluster, we're going to run out of patience. While you're at it, we want some assurance that you've read and understood the requirements for referencing and avoidance of original research, neither of which you observed before you were blocked. Acroterion (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am just trying to correct and add information based on actual investigative reports that are contrary to what the page says. Also, I don't understand how to further express my sincerity. AtticusDutch (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources of your information that contradict the sources listed in the articles, and why are the listed sources incorrect? Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

So, no text box appeared on former chat (now using laptop, not mobile device) help? There is a show called Air Disasters (in Canada its Mayday) and they get their info from the NTSB (or appropriate investigation team) and interviews with relevant people.AtticusDutch (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need printed sources that can be cited, not at one remove via a sometimes-sensationalized TV show. That show has been a source of problems and its use is generally deprecated. Acroterion (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how to find the text box for the page on a laptop? I actually have to edit the page in order to talk. Also, AD pulls from NTSB, and I can cite NTSB if you like.

I've never used a textbox on WP, I just directly edit. You absolutely must cite NTSB or a reputable journalistic/academic source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. AD is not a reliable source, regardless of where they pull some of their material.

Here's the deal: you will be patient, and will accept the advice of more experienced editors who have years of experience in aviation-related topics, and in many cases are aviation professionals. You will cite verifiable, reliable reports according to the standards demanded, and will not introduce your personal interpretation. If you depart from those standards, and if you return to belligerent interactions with other editors, you will be blocked again, with no further discussion. Aviation disaster-related articles have been plagued for years by self-appointed authorities who introduce pet theories, and are accordingly watched closely.

In order to be unblocked, you will acknowledge the requirements above, and you'll post a couple of examples, with references, of what you plan to do. Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. AtticusDutch (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the Tenerife air disaster: The collision occurred when the KLM airliner initiated its takeoff run while the Pan Am airliner, shrouded in fog, was still on the runway and about to turn off onto the taxiway. The impact and resulting fire killed everyone on board KLM 4805 and most of the occupants of Pan Am 1736, with only 61 survivors in the front section of the aircraft.[2][3] Now, hypothetically, I want to change the survivor count to 62, and add a more specific detail. In order to source it, I need a box that says "[n]" for the corresponding number. Now, this is near the top of the article, so do I have to change the numbers going to the bottom and change all the numbers under references and add my own in it's corresponding position? AtticusDutch (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or would you prefer "[citation as stated under references]"? AtticusDutch (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the two cited references wrong? What more specific detail? What reference are you citing?

The reference numbers are self-formatting. If you want to do serious reference work, you must learn to use the editing interface, so you can use formatted in-line references, which automatically number and propagate to the reference section. You don't alter numbering or existing references at all. See WP:REFERENCE. Acroterion (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. BTW, the references are not wrong, I just used them as an example. AtticusDutch (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who cares, the world's largest airplane, the An-225 Mriya, flew again today after 18 months of not flying. AtticusDutch (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody want to add to the lion air thing about today's crash? For reasons, I cannot do so. AtticusDutch (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]