User talk:T9537
January 2024
[edit]Hey, you stated that the Ryanair group is the only MAX8-200 operator. In fact Akasa Air also operates this aircraft type. 80.187.75.252 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, appreciate the correction - the table wasn't updated at the time (which i see you've since updated so thank you) so i was just basing it off of that. T9537 (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Alright. The number of employed people at Ryanair were stated by an anonymous user (93.108.61.93) and not by Cagliost. In the former stated numbers the amount of cabin crew was wrong: 9500 instead of 13,300.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1197689692
- I'm fine with how it's now. Just another word "about" can be removed. 80.187.75.128 (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi; I didn't bother checking specifics - just noticed that pilots and the rest was right, so assumed it was right. I did update it however to be more accurate. T9537 (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
AN
[edit]If you're going to make accusations against someone on AN, you'd better provide plenty of diffs to illustrate your point and articulate it clearly in a well spelled-out argument. Don't expect others to do your homework. Toddst1 (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help / Advice!
- Would you be able to point / guide me in a direction to get a better understanding of how to do this? T9537 (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, your discussion really belongs on WP:ANI not AN per the notice at the top of the page. It's kind of assumed that if you're going to take an issue to that level of a forum, you know how to make your point, so other than the "Before you post" stuff at the top of the ANI page, there's Wikipedia:ANIISLOUSY which will probably not be much use to you. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Would you suggest moving it to ANI? T9537 (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- If nobody has commented yet, I recommend removing it completely and redoing it in your sandbox outlining your case much, much better before bringing it to ani. If someone has commented on it, you need to leave it. Toddst1 (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Awesome - no comments yet, so i've moved it to ANI. Thanks for your help :) T9537 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I declined your report at AN3, because it's a slow edit-war at best, and DeFacto is contesting your edits on BLP grounds, which are a valid reason for reverting. You don't appear to have gained a solid consensus at the talkpage, and your assertions that BLP is not in play are faulty. The question of whether the officer should be named is best resolved at a content moderation/discussion noticeboard, like WP:BLPN, or if that fails, at WP:DRN. AN3, AN and ANI are not for resolution of content disputes. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, you incorrectly claimed I was in agreement with adding the name. I was not and am not. If your ability to parse comments is so poor, please do not try and assess consensus and leave that for someone else. I find it offensive you've claimed I was in agreement with you when I feel my original message as clear that I was not, and don't wish for you to incorrectly state my position any further. Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also just a note that this is already at BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shooting of Chris Kaba, it's how I came across it. Unfortunately it hasn't received much additional attention actually I think I might be the only one who joined from BLPN. Worst case a RFC could be used however I think we're far from there yet. It's fine to not be very active on wikipedia. However if that's the case you cannot expect to come back, decide people are in agreement with you when they're not, and try to force through an objected change in a few hours. At the very least and especially if your ability to assess what people are saying is so poor, please leave a few days for others to respond so they can correct it when you've misunderstood what they were saying. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe i've ever said you're in agreement. However, if that's the case, my apologies. T9537 (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- You stated that there was consensus, when it was not apparent to me, at least. Acroterion (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe i've ever said you're in agreement. However, if that's the case, my apologies. T9537 (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also just a note that this is already at BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shooting of Chris Kaba, it's how I came across it. Unfortunately it hasn't received much additional attention actually I think I might be the only one who joined from BLPN. Worst case a RFC could be used however I think we're far from there yet. It's fine to not be very active on wikipedia. However if that's the case you cannot expect to come back, decide people are in agreement with you when they're not, and try to force through an objected change in a few hours. At the very least and especially if your ability to assess what people are saying is so poor, please leave a few days for others to respond so they can correct it when you've misunderstood what they were saying. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, you incorrectly claimed I was in agreement with adding the name. I was not and am not. If your ability to parse comments is so poor, please do not try and assess consensus and leave that for someone else. I find it offensive you've claimed I was in agreement with you when I feel my original message as clear that I was not, and don't wish for you to incorrectly state my position any further. Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I declined your report at AN3, because it's a slow edit-war at best, and DeFacto is contesting your edits on BLP grounds, which are a valid reason for reverting. You don't appear to have gained a solid consensus at the talkpage, and your assertions that BLP is not in play are faulty. The question of whether the officer should be named is best resolved at a content moderation/discussion noticeboard, like WP:BLPN, or if that fails, at WP:DRN. AN3, AN and ANI are not for resolution of content disputes. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Awesome - no comments yet, so i've moved it to ANI. Thanks for your help :) T9537 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- If nobody has commented yet, I recommend removing it completely and redoing it in your sandbox outlining your case much, much better before bringing it to ani. If someone has commented on it, you need to leave it. Toddst1 (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Would you suggest moving it to ANI? T9537 (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, your discussion really belongs on WP:ANI not AN per the notice at the top of the page. It's kind of assumed that if you're going to take an issue to that level of a forum, you know how to make your point, so other than the "Before you post" stuff at the top of the ANI page, there's Wikipedia:ANIISLOUSY which will probably not be much use to you. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.