User talk:Astropulse: Difference between revisions

:sorry [[User:Astropulse|Astropulse]]([[User talk:Astropulse#top|talk]]) 02:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:sorry [[User:Astropulse|Astropulse]]([[User talk:Astropulse#top|talk]]) 02:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:: lolllllllllll [[User:BlahVlah|BlahVlah]]([[User talk:BlahVlah|talk]]) 06:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

== Suggestions for the future ==

== Suggestions for the future ==

Hello, Astropulse. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, “Taylor Swift vs Scooter Braun: Bad Blood”.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lfrom ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that edit because “Gold Top” is not an official designation for the helicopter. It’s simply a sort of nickname; it’s not the official designation for the helicopter. Additionally, that edit removed a lot of changes I had made previously, so I simply reverted it. Cutlass^Ciera 17:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From NPR: “The crash could be the most significant disaster in U.S. airspace in at least 15 years.” (Clearly referencing Colgan)

From CNN: “The latest fatal commercial plane crashes in the United States include: Feb. 12, 2009 – Colgan Air Flight 3407 crashed near Buffalo, NY. 50 people died.”

From ABC: “This is the first major commercial airplane crash in the United States since the Colgan Air crash near Buffalo, New York, in 2009.” BlahVlah (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities only 49. American airlines 587 has 260. 5342 has 67. so its deadliest since 2001 Astropulse (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so its bettter to say It is the deadliest U.S. aviation accident since the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 on November 12, 2001. Astropulse (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also since this both are AA – its better to compare that rather that Colgan Astropulse (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading what I wrote. It’s the first fatal crash, not the deadliest that I am comparing it to. I’ve already given my rationale for why I think this is a much more appropriate comparison and you keep on attempting to revert it without any consensus. Also, notice that this accident had 67 total fatalities, which makes it 17 more than Colgan but nowhere near close to the American 587 crash. I am reverting this edit again, especially considering I have shown multiple reliable sources that cover this event in the same way. If you want to reference 587 in the lead alongside Colgan, you’re free to do that and then there can be a discussion where some consensus can be reached. But for now, your edit is being reverted. BlahVlah (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as first crash since the last crash… it make so sense Mr Astropulse (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlahVlah Im not trying to pick a fight or edit war with you. If you want to include it in wiki. u need to open a talk. Burden is on you to add information that is contested. sorry. thats what wiki policies are Astropulse (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what do u mean by “consensus against comparing aviation accidents” can u point to me it? Astropulse (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AVILAYOUT-WW BlahVlah (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not necessarily opposed to including American 587, but 1. it’s already mentioned later in the article and 2. this is my opinion, but a 16 year streak of no major fatal crashes is more noteworthy. Primary sources are covering it both ways, so you’re not necessarily wrong, but there needs to be a discussion before just warring. BlahVlah (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not looked at the talk page? I have very clearly explained my rationale there. BlahVlah (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And may I add, so far everyone is agreeing it is noteworthy enough to be in the lead. BlahVlah (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that fatality is more important that being first ( from something that is last ) i have no problem including Colgan in body. Because Flight 5342 and Flight 587 is from AA – that comparison is more interesting that colgan. Also i think we cannot add so many comparisons like this as per WP:AVILAYOUT-WW But having one comparison related to american airlines make sense. But if u disagree you can remove both from lead for now. Astropulse (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can open up a talk to decide which one to include colgan or AA 587 in lead Astropulse (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a talk that I linked to. You can comment your opinion there. But I am seriously considering reporting you to the admins for edit warring. BlahVlah (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted 3 times in 24hrs. 4th would be violation. havent violated 3rr yet Astropulse (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You actually did it 5 times. [1][2][3][4][5] BlahVlah (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh u r right. ill revert Astropulse (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you’re not just warring with me, but you’ve repeatedly changed “American Eagle” to “American Airlines,” and said “operated by” instead of “marketed by,” even though that is factually incorrect. BlahVlah (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

like i said many times – its reported and written exactly as mentioned in FAA and NTSB website. Its sourced in the article. operated by is whats written in their website. Ill open up a new talk tomorrow if u still in dispute Astropulse (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect. You can view the many articles written about regional flight incidents; Wikipedia has been very consistent in referring to the regional airline as the operator. Also, not to appeal to authority, but I am a part of this industry. I know for a fact that regional flights are always operated by a regional airline. BlahVlah (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PSA is operator here. no one is denying that. But you are taking the meaning of word operator from the sense of industry jargon. but it has many meanings. here operated simply means shown or also called as Astropulse (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And regardless, the fact still remains you have been edit warring. BlahVlah (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have sufficiently made it clear your actions are unproductive. Before you make any further changes, I strongly encourage you to discuss in the talk page first and get a consensus before reversing my edits again. If you do not do this, I will report you for edit warring. BlahVlah (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. BlahVlah (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Astropulse (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your topic on the talk page of the article for the 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision, I want to let you know that I believe this could’ve been pulled off better.

For example, you definitely should’ve pinged other editors about this proposed change; additionally, you did not wait to hear everyone’s opinion.

With how you pulled this off, it could be argued that you were not acting to resolve the dispute. I don’t believe this is so, but please, keep this in mind next time.

b3stJ (IPA: /bʌˈθrɛstˌdʒeɪ/, formerly AEagleLionThing) | User talk page | 02:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there are 5 or 6 supports. what do u mean i pulled this off?? i don’t need to tag anyone. its on talk page. if you disagree comment. there is also a concept of presumed consensus. if its contested – it can be changed later. Astropulse (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is contested. There is a debate here.

Further, what I’m saying is that it is very easy to assume that. Let’s assume the viewpoint of an unspecified person. There was already a discussion (see above for link), but then you started a new topic instead of contributing further to the current one (despite it being about the exact same thing). From that, you got affirmative votes (no dispute there), but you seemed to be in a hurry to change it (against the spirit highlighted in WP:DISENGAGE, a Wikipedia policy). You then implemented the changes here. Though we can argue for pages over how much time needs to elapse, because RFCs (which are for similar issues) require that discussion run its course, someone can easily not assume good faith and believe that you sought to quickly realize your changes to prevent a real consensus from being formed.

By the way, this is no accusation. I do believe you are acting in good faith. I’m simply arguing that your actions can easily be misinterpreted.

b3stJ (IPA: /bʌˈθrɛstˌdʒeɪ/, formerly AEagleLionThing) | User talk page | 02:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]