User talk:AyaanLamar

This is AyaanLamar'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.

ITN

Hello. Thanks for your nomination, but I think it is unlikely to be accepted as there were no injuries in the incident which according to the source you provided is not uncommon. I suspect this event is not of wide interest as ITN requests. ITN is not just a place to post articles about news events, they must be significant to some degree. You may wish to review WP:ITN to learn more about ITN. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trending news of wide interest now as the WP:ITN suggests it should be updated to reflect recent or current events of *wide interests*. AyaanLamar (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wide interest will go away quickly as there are no casualties in this incident. "Wide interest" is often confused with "trending". It is "trending" because news readers are seeing that the plane landed safely and once they do, they will move on. ITN does not typically post transportation accidents without something like a large number of casualties/deaths or damage to a notable structure. This is just a malfunction with a plane that caused it to make an emergency landing which it did safely. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you said "damage to a notable structure" , The falling of a planes whole engine cover is not a small damage and it has done damages in ground as well . AyaanLamar (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The part fell off over the ocean and did not damage anything on the ground. Unless the Eiffel Tower, White House, or other comparable structure was damaged by this plane part, that is not significant enough for ITN. The plane itself is not a notable structure. While certainly disturbing to witness, the plane landed safely with no injuries. As the NYTimes notes, something similar happened last year. Based on my experience this is not going to be posted to ITN. I'm honestly not even sure it merits an article- though I'm only dealing with ITN at the moment. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want to write about this incident, WikiNews is available. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I surely think this might have a chance in the ITN , Lets see! AyaanLamar (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question your good faith at all, and I cannot prevent you from pursuing this. But I felt it fair to be realistic with you about the chances of posting an unremarkable incident with a plane with no casualties. If you choose to ignore my experience and advice, that is your decision and I respect it. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not bragging but you said the article does not merit to be an article , Now it became an article AyaanLamar (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "331dot's Wikipedia", people can have different views on it in good faith- though the notability is being questioned. Best wishes 331dot (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best regards, Friend :) AyaanLamar (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently pointless redirects

I see you have created two redirects to articles from draft space titles which have never been used as titles of drafts. I can't conceive of any possible purpose in doing that, so I have deleted the redirects. If, however, you do think there is a good reason for such strange redirects, feel free to let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The registration of an aircraft is the only info to recognize a specific aircraft ex:A Number plate on a car ,There is no other way to trace it so please revert the edits AyaanLamar (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's draft space is for preparing content which may eventually become an article. You don't give any reason at all for making an exception and using draft space to hold redirects to existing articles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright but the redirects would be extremely useful AyaanLamar (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now realised a probable reason why you created the redirects. Presumably you would have created them in main space, but you can't create mainspace pages from a new account. Is that right? There is a page for new editors to request creation of redirects, but I shall save you the trouble of doing that by restoring your redirects and moving them across from draft space to main space. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @JamesBWatson AyaanLamar (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change the mutamil

Yes my correction work for my reference id correct only Prem paul ganesan (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer WP:CITE AyaanLamar (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling

Can you please explain why you have warned several users who were already either warned for that specific edit (and reverted) or blocked as you did here, here, here and here? The list goes on but you get my point. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of persistent vandalism even after giving warning AyaanLamar (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AyaanLamar Not a single one of those users edited after they were given the warnings by the users who had already warned them or reverted for that specific infraction . CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example of what I mean. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gave a Vandalism warning as ClueBot NG didn't give a vandalism warning Here AyaanLamar (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AyaanLamar Please do not double warn users like you have been doing. This doesn't explain this, however. And there are several instances where users had been reverted, properly warned by actual editors and then subsequently warn bombed by you. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That might be because both user clicked revert at the exact time.You must understand there are countless people recent patrolling and they all come across the same vandal caused by users AyaanLamar (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double warnings are very rare, and in many cases you've issued warnings minutes after it had already been reverted and warned. This along with your improper reports to RFPP, mishandling of AFDs, and lack of understanding on how and when a page is under protection leads me to believe you might not be ready to handle patrolling articles. You've also given some improper warnings, starting at level 3 and 4 for rather minor run of the mill vandalism. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about these processes but you need to slow down and put more thought into what you are doing. -- ferret (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also explain why you did this? -- ferret (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Assume good faith and take it easy as you know i am a new Wikipedian , Give tips to me rather than talking with pressure AyaanLamar (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Regards the Page Nasrul Hamid

Dear AyaanLamar, Good Afternoon. Can you please help me in editing the page "Nasrul Hamid" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahangiralam.ceh (talk • contribs) 09:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit in your language please refer --> here <-- AyaanLamar (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Mohammedjaseem66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

What Wikipedia policy have i violated? AyaanLamar (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This one. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:51, 23 February 2018 (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.

Discussion at [[c:User talk:AyaanLamar]]

You are invited to join the discussion at [[c:User talk:AyaanLamar]]. — Jeff G. ツ 10:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of United Airlines Flight 1175 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United Airlines Flight 1175 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SportingFlyer T·C 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of United Airlines Flight 1175 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United Airlines Flight 1175 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dfadden (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]