User talk:Plane Person

Welcome to my talkpage. If you want to talk to me feel free.

Welcome

Hi, and welcome to the Aviation WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPAVIATION Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
We have a number of child projects and task forces that focus on specific topics and aircraft types.
We're developing a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the experienced project members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining, could you sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Signups. Also you'll see that User:LGF1992UK already took the UK flag, could you pick another one,

is available if you wish. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 16:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and here's a cool link for edit counting [1]. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Airline Clean Up

Hello Plane Person. Do you want to help me remove all the junk in the Emirates article in order to make it a GA class article. Can you please point out the junk info to me, so that it can be removed. That would be great if you could. --MoHasanie Talk 14:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll help with the cleanup. I've already started with the IFE Section and Economy Class Section (I think that the section detailing cabins and services is the most bias and the section is most need of cleanup). --Plane Person (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats great that you've started. The article rating has changed to Start class for some reason. It said that Referencing and citation, Structure, and Grammar criterion were not met to even attain a B Class status. Hopefully we can improve it to become a GA class article. --MoHasanie Talk 19:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of structure and grammar thats not good so it will be a lot of work. I think the page is too long nad needs each section to be trimmed and made more concise. Also, I've noticed that section of a the Emirates article can be doulbe or even triple to length of other Wikipedia airline articles on the same topic. I'm not very good with the financial and historical parts of airline artciles so why don't you do the first half, down to Destinations and then I'll do from Destinations to the end of the article. Then, when we can just look over each others work before submitting it for Good Article status.

I will start on the first half as soon as possible, but i was wondring the Hisory section is already quite concise, and the financial section is just figures. What can be changed with that? --MoHasanie Talk 13:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a point. Why don't you do those sections plus the Business Model, Rivalry and Marketing. Is that ok? Can you also look over the destinations section; I've rewritten and reordered it but I'm not sure if its right. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I think i've done the financial section. I've merged the two tables together, and removed info that was very encyclopedic. Besides people can just follow the link to the annual reports. I've tried to use the same table as the British Airways financial table, as i think thats the best to use. Orginally when i first created the 2 tables, i used the Singapore Airlines table. Tell me what you think?

Also i like what you've done in the destinations section, but, the exact same information is on the Emirates Destinations article. So i was thinking why don't we just transfer the Destinations information on the Emirates article into the Emirates Destinations article, and just leave the sentence in the destinations section: "Emirates operates 1,883 flights every week across its network of over 100 destinations in 61 countries on six continents from its hub in Dubai" and also leaving the new destinations table.--MoHasanie Talk 18:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i asked a user who asseses aviation articles, what the article needs to be improved. This is what they said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Peer_review/Emirates_Airline

--MoHasanie Talk 20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lets work on that then. However I still think its too long, what about you? Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I like the financial section and I'm going to merge destinations with the other oage as you suggested. --Plane Person (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I have also merged the business model and rivalry section, because the Emirates Airline Rivalry article carries the same info as the Emirates Airline Business Model section, which then also means that those 2 article need to be merged into one article. --MoHasanie Talk 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged things around, shortened sentences, and deleted a few. I've also moved info out of the article that didn't belong there such as the Emirates flight catering section. Emirates flight catering is a subsidary of The Emirates Group not OF Emirates Airline.

The page now is about 78 kilobytes which i think is a decent size considering when we started it was 96 kilobytes. Now all thats left is a clean-up of the cabin and services section, and then we can start on the main work of rewriting the article. --MoHasanie Talk 16:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the intro. I've also added a section summarising the airlines history. I wrote in a rush so can you please read the intro and make any neccessary changes. --MoHasanie Talk 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plane Person are you still intrested in rewriting this article. If you're not, then you could have just messaged me. I'm not ready to remove all the junk out of the article myself. It would be great if you would help, and if we work fast enough, we could both get 30pts in the competition.--MoHasanie Talk 06:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in, sorry about the lack of work, I've just got a lot going on at the moment outside of Wikipedia. I'll do some more of the work. Again, sorry for the lack of help - --Plane Person (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thats good then. Sorry i was a little harsh in the last message, i gues i thought you were ignoring my messages and that you didn't want to clean up the article. I cannot do it by myself, because i need someone to continuosuly check what i do, and give me feedback.

The article's rating also changed, from Start Class to C class. --MoHasanie Talk 09:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've done great work, the page size is only 77kB. I'll look over the cabin sections again and for the rating, it definately wasn't a start class article. --Plane Person (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Contest update

Well, it's just 1 day until the contest begins, so I thought I'd check in with everyone and make sure you're all ready to go. First I'd like everyone to check out the main contest page and read over the rules and the scoring system. If you have any final questions or concerns, make them known on the talk page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/History/2009 is the scoreboard that will be updated, you can watchlist it. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions which shows how your submission page should look. Another example is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions Example, and your personal page should be listed at the footer of the page, which is also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Users. Again, take any questions to the contest talk page.

Good luck! - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 20:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your submissions, but I had to make a few edits to your list. To get points for "Level Up's" you need to have improved the article during the competition, which began September 1. British Airways begins the month a B-Class article, therefore to get points you need to improve it to GA, A or higher. Finncomm Airlines and Viva Macau are both Start class. I reverted your Viva assessment, and completed the required B-class checklist. Improve those to C-Class or higher and you'll receive points. As you improve the articles, you can unhide the links and end-class parts and fill them in to receive points. Also, the initial article assessment points are only for taking an unassessed article from Category:Unassessed aviation articles and assessing it, or for finding an article that doesn't have our project tag {{WPAVIATION}} on it, but should, tagging it and giving it an assessment. It is not for changing assessments already given. Thanks, and keep up the good work. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed your submissions and updated your score accordingly. There are a few ways of making scoring easier. You could add direct links to your edits. I added a link to your GA nom for BA, and you could add other links showing the assessing and checklist additions. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions/Nimbus227 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions/Eurocopter for examples of how others are doing it. Keep up the good work! - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 16:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contest scoring change

I've realized there may be an issue with the scoring system, and I have a solution, which I've explained here. Feedback is requested. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Plane Person. You have new messages at Talk:Viva Macau.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aviator006 (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recent GAN/GAR nominations

I've noticed that you've been making or involved in several applications for articles to be moved to GA status recently, such as British Airways and Emirates Airline. However, in both of the examples stated, there have been basic and obvious flaws that are not acceptable in a GA, hence they are automatically failing, and there isn't much point in submitting them for a GA review unless the work is put in both before and after commentry is given to ensure that the articles are up to standard. For instance, both of those articles had/has a terrible reference problem, not using the proper CiteWeb template, often just URLs slapped in for citations. A GA-level article has an URL, Title, Publisher, and a Date; to be found on EVERY reference. References that aren't correctly formatted are obvious, easy to fix with effort, and should have been resolved before applying for a GA review. Similarly, citation tags should be all resolved, either by removing poor content or finding the appropriate citation. Images should be correctly formatted, image 'sandwidging' is not appropriate, and this is a problem on the Emerates Airline article.

I have used the last two weeks to sharpen up and repair British Airways in order to ready it for a GA review, you may wish to compare its current state with where it stood before the enhancements, it should display the depth of an overhaul necessary to ready an article for GA status. Even now it is not certain to be awarded that rank, but it is well prepared now and the obvious mistakes are resolved. Eurostar is another good example of a GA-type article at the standards expected of current GA quality assessments, having only a few months ago passed. GA status has become far more stringent over previous years, it is not easily obtained or loosely awarded. I hope this have proved useful to you. Kyteto (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avient Aviation

Re your recent edit to the accidents section, if you check the Aviation Safety Network reference, it does state that there were reports of a tailstrike on take-off. Would you consider reverting your edit? Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a tailstrike but it is highly unlikely that a tailstrike could cause a runway overrun so I don't think it is the cause of the accident. --Plane Person (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Aviation Contest

Hi Plane Person! This note is to inform you that your Aviation Contest submissions page has been archived from the previous round! You are now free to add submissions for this round! Note: This next round will run from January through February, so feel free to update your submission page with work from both months! Thanks, and happy editing! (Note: I will not be watching this space. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Contest discussion page. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Air Fecteau, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Airlines??

I am mystified by reason 2) in your summary to this edit. We do not have a British Airlines page! Please keep an eye on the work of ANG99 (talk · contribs). If anything requires admin action, let me know. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was that "British Airlines" doesn't exist but British Airways does exist. The second reason was that the table didn't make any sense, there were seat numbers/config under the routes heading, empty spaces, columns with no titles, partial information and more which I can't fully remember. I'm trying to get the BA page to A-Class and then FA-Class and it isn't going to get there with associated pages in the state that that page was in. Hope that clears it up, Plane Person (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Are you trying to say: 'when I wrote "the British Airlines page has many problems itself" in the edit summary, I meant to write "British Airways"'? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant to write "British Airlines Fleet" which was the page that was linked to the fleet section of the British Airways page. Plane Person (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

BA - reverting me

How many times are you going to revert my edit to British Airways without discussing it? The documentation at {{cite news}} advises setting the location for citations where the publication name doesn't include the location. You're also not bothering to keep the authors added by my edits. Rjwilmsi 17:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the A-Class article review then you will see I was told to remove the "publication city" from all the references and that is why, as I have said in my edit summary, I keep reverting your edits. It is an unnecessary thing to put in which only adds to the, already too large, page. If we hadn’t of done the review then I wouldn’t be stopping you but as it was required to be fixed before it received it’s A-Class award then I have to stop them from reappearing. Hope that clears it up, Plane Person (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It is not my habit to get into an argument with another editor, so I'm going to try to avoid it here. Removing the locations is against {{cite news}}, and, for example, featured articles on similar topics include the location – Boeing_747#References bibliography section. Anyway, if you add back the authors you reverted my script will not just add locations to an article's citations. Rjwilmsi 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry for sounding as if I wanted to start an argument, I don't want to either. Since you know more about this than me, I'll stop reverting it and you can go ahead with the edit. Sorry about all that, I was simply working on what I was told was the case, Plane Person (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

No big deal. I think if you feel the need to revert somebody more than once for the same reason (and not obvious vandalism) it deserves discussion first. And of course I don't expect every editor to know every piece of documentation, I don't. Rjwilmsi 18:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert my edit to British Airways

The source which is used for the fleet (CAA) is months out of date. I recommend that it is changed. And kindly don't revert my edit to the number of 757s in the fleet again, it is correct, I have info from cabin crew as well as other sources. 86.158.231.232 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to revert it since we have to use references and I don't think it should be changed as it is the most reputable source out there for this information. It's not that I don't trust you but for an A-Class article that I want to get to FA-Class, all info has to be referenced properly and although I agree with you that there are 3 757s in the fleet, it can't be changed without a reputable reference. Sorry about this but hope that it's cleared up now, Plane Person (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]