W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: DaveReidUK

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome


thumb|thumbtime=31|300px|A video showing the basics of WP:Verifiability|verifiability ↗ and neutral point of view ↗ policies ↗. ↗

'''Welcome!'''

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, 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 (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); 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 <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!&nbsp; - Ahunt (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Is / was in aircraft articles



Hi, following your edits to the De Havilland Comet ↗ article, a discussion has been started by the Aviation Wikiproject on is / was and remaining survivors ↗. You are invited to participate. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk ↗) 09:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Do not edit or remove other editors' Talk page comments



You may '''not''' edit or remove other editors' comments in any Request for Comment or other discussion on Wikipedia, {{diff2|907665123|as you did here}}. Please do not repeat this violation of our ''Talk page guidelines ↗''. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><span style="color: #006633;">General <i>Ization</i></span></span> <sup><i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> </sup> 13:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft ↗


Thanks for signing up for this project. It is a very busy and active project with lots going on and we can always use more help and especially a fresh set of eyes. If you haven't done so already you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft ↗ to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) ↗ as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft ↗, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Royal Air Force aircraft names


30px|link= ↗Template:Royal Air Force aircraft names ↗ has been nominated for deletion ↗. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page ↗.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk ↗) 12:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message



<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2021 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2021|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1056563210 -->

''The WikiEagle'' - January 2022




{|width=100% style="border:2px solid #87CEEB; color:black; background-color:#F0FFFF;"
|center|200px ↗
|-
|style="padding:0px 2em; font-size:42px; text-align:center; font-family:Times New Roman;"|The WikiEagle
|-
|style="text-align:center;"|The <span style="color:#008080;">WikiProject Aviation</span> ↗ Newsletter
|}
{|{{#ifeq:{{ROOTPAGENAME}}|WikiProject Aviation||class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"}} border=1 width=100% style="border:2px solid SkyBlue; border-collapse:collapse; background-color:#white;"
!colspan=2 style="color:black; background-color:#87CEEB; padding:5px;"|Volume I &#8212; Issue 1
|-
|colspan=2 style="text-align:center; padding:5px;"|Aviation Project ↗{{•}}Project discussion ↗{{•}}Members ↗{{•}}Assessment ↗{{•}}Outreach ↗{{•}}''The WikiEagle'' ↗
|-
|colspan=2 style="padding:5px; vertical-align:top;"|<span style="font-size:22px;">'''''Announcements'''''</span>
----

|-
|style="padding:5px; vertical-align:top;"|<span style="font-size:22px;">'''Members'''</span>
----
'''New Members'''
{{columns-list|colwidth=15em|Number of active members: 386.
Total number of members: 921.}}
----
<span style="font-size:22px;">'''Closed Discussions'''</span>
----
20px ↗ '''Featured Article assessment'''

20px ↗ '''Good Article assessment'''

20px ↗ '''Deletion'''

20px ↗ '''Requested moves'''

|width=50% style="padding:5px; vertical-align:top;"|<span style="font-size:22px;">'''Article Statistics'''</span><br/><span style="font-size:12px;">This data reflects values from DMY.</span>
----
{| class="ratingstable wikitable plainlinks" style="text-align: right;"
|-
! colspan="3" class="ratingstabletitle" | Aviation pages by quality
|-
! rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: bottom" | '''Quality'''

|-
! style="text-align: center;" | '''Total'''
|-
| {{FA-Class|category=Category:FA-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''142 ↗'''
|-
| {{FL-Class|category=Category:FL-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''15 ↗'''
|-
| {{A-Class|category=Category:A-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''56 ↗'''
|-
| {{GA-Class|category=Category:GA-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''505 ↗'''
|-
| {{B-Class|category=Category:B-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''4,573 ↗'''
|-
| {{C-Class|category=Category:C-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''11,878 ↗'''
|-
| {{Start-Class|category=Category:Start-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''15,082 ↗'''
|-
| {{Stub-Class|category=Category:Stub-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''18,754 ↗'''
|-
| {{List-Class|category=Category:List-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''2,539 ↗'''
|-
| {{Category-Class|category=Category:Category-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''11,638 ↗'''
|-
| {{Disambig-Class|category=Category:Disambig-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''653 ↗'''
|-
| {{File-Class|category=Category:File-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''2,713 ↗'''
|-
| {{Portal-Class|category=Category:Portal-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''629 ↗'''
|-
| {{Project-Class|category=Category:Project-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''89 ↗'''
|-
| {{Redirect-Class|category=Category:Redirect-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''1,518 ↗'''
|-
| {{Template-Class|category=Category:Template-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''2,489 ↗'''
|-
| {{NA-Class|category=Category:NA-Class_aviation_articles}}
|| '''66 ↗'''
|-
| {{Assessed-Class}}
|| '''73,339 ↗'''
|-
| {{Unassessed-Class|category=Category:Unassessed_aviation_articles}}
|| '''1 ↗'''
|-
| style="text-align: center;" | '''Total'''
|| '''73,340 ↗'''
|-
{{User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork|project=Aviation|export=table}}
|-
|}
|-
|colspan=2 style="padding:5px; vertical-align:top;"|<span style="font-size:22px;">'''New/Ongoing Discussions'''</span>
----
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}

20px ↗ '''Featured Article review'''

20px ↗ '''A-class Article assessment'''

20px ↗ '''Good Article assessment'''

20px ↗ '''Merger proposals'''

20px ↗ '''Splitting proposals'''

{{Col-2}}
20px ↗ '''Deletion'''

20px ↗ '''Requested moves'''

20px ↗ '''Did you know'''
{{Col-end}}
----
<span style="font-size:22px;">'''On The Main Page'''</span>
----
'''Did you know...'''
|-
|colspan=2 style="padding:5px; font-size:12px;"|
Discuss & propose changes to ''The WikiEagle'' at '''''The WikiEagle'' talk ↗''' page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the '''mailing list ↗'''.<br/>
Newsletter contributor: {{Noping|ZLEA}}
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:ZLEA@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/WikiEagle/Subscribe&oldid=1063162664 -->

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2022 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2022|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1124425182 -->

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2023 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2023|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1187132125 -->

A350 crash



Sorry, i was wrong. There are only few sources giving a bit of details of the moment of collision, none detailed location of collision. Mine was wrong.

Interim report surprisingly gives no exact details of the moment of collision. 79.208.182.21 ↗ (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, found the well-known: Aviation Safety Network: Japan Airlines flight JL516 ↗. Includes a good map at the bottom. 79.208.182.21 ↗ (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 -->

Administrators and discussion



Hello, I figured I'd move this discussion here since I didn't want to clog the talk page of the Jeju Airlines crash more.

Administrators on Wikipedia are explicitly not content administrators. They are purely "dirty work" oriented - i.e. blocking editors who are only here to vandalize, or similar. Administrators have no special authority over content. Any editor can make any change to any article generally speaking (with some exceptions for topics that are contentious or have frequent arguments/misbehavior), without asking prior permission from anyone else. In rare cases, it becomes necessary to stop newer editors from editing certain articles because of persistent vandalism or unconstructive edits from them. This unfortunately frequently occurs right after big news stories because people see things in the news, see that "anyone can edit", and jump right in without understanding how things work on Wikipedia - especially requirements related to using reliable sources only ↗ (rather than blogs, etc), using neutral tone in articles and not favoring one side or another ↗, ensuring due weight ↗ is given to different pieces of information both in relation to each other and in general, etc. It seems that on December 29th this article was initially protected only from ''brand new'' accounts, but there was enough disruption from accounts that were not ''brand'' new but were still ''fairly'' new (i.e. not extended confirmed ↗) that the protection was increased thereafter. That's why ''you'' couldn't make the changes you requested, even though they were reasonable in my opinion. But even though an administrator protected the page to prevent that disruption (and you were caught in the crossfire), administrators are not "content moderators" who are then "responsible" for a page they protect.

It falls on other editors who ''do'' have the tenure required to continue editing the article while it is protected (which is not forever, in almost all cases). Unfortunately, as Wikipedia is a volunteer website, it sometimes falls on people like me to find time to look at edit requests, evaluate them, and discuss them, then make any changes required. One thing to learn as you continue to edit Wikipedia is that often times a short discussion or talk page post is preferable to making an edit immediately. Sure, fixing typoes/etc isn't going to be controversial - but even small changes to the wording can be controversial (as evidenced by the perpetual discussion any time an aviation incident happens as to whether to call it a crash/incident/accident/etc). It's permitted to make a bold edit that you think improves the article without any prior discussion or warning ↗ - I don't want you to think it's not. But if you don't discuss it first, others have only two options to voice their concern that your edit may not have been an improvement (even if you think it is uncontroversially an improvement). They can either undo your edit ↗, or they can leave it up and start a discussion on the talkpage of the article to gather more opinions on it. If you then undo their undo (i.e. remake the edit, even if you make some minor changes), then it becomes an edit war ↗, which is disruptive on its own as it makes it more difficult for others to edit (by causing edit conflicts ↗) and causing people who view the article over time to see different versions - not because it's necessarily improved, but because it's going back and forth.

This is why I've always found that, especially when another editor has already made a change or started a discussion on the talk page, it's usually better to at least reply to that discussion or start one if need be, allowing other editors to chime in before I make the change I think needs made. We aren't perfect, and what I think is an improvement may be something that I'm just insane about and need to have my head screwed on straight. And there's no deadline for articles to be perfect ↗ (plus they likely never will be), so a slight delay in even an uncontroversial improvement to, well, make sure other editors agree with you isn't usually a problem. Furthermore, it's common that people (like myself) are unable to be on Wikipedia all day long - many people check Wikipedia only once a day and so if you make a post right after they've gotten offline, they may not see it until 24 hours later at best. Even when they see it, they may need more time to reply, because our time is limited and perhaps they were already planning to work on another article/issue/discussion during their time that day. This is why discussions can sometimes seem to move at a snail's pace - but since there's no deadline, it's fine if they do. I find it courteous to give people at least enough time (8 hours or so, assuming they just went to sleep before I posted) before I assume there is no dissent to my opinion/view/proposal/etc. But it's even ''more'' courteous to give at least 24 hours, because that ensures that anyone who edits only once a day (be it for a few minutes/hours) has had time to get to their daily editing time and see it. Sometimes, on low traffic articles, it may be a good idea to wait even longer - a couple days to a week - before you assume nobody has anything to say in response. It's all about balancing ''how much of an improvement'' it is, ''how controversial'' it ''may'' be, and ''how likely it is others are paying close attention'' to it when you decide how long to leave something before you assume no dissent - and only you can make that call as to how long you think is courteous and reasonable to leave. Sometimes that may be no time at all (i.e. making the edit immediately, as I describe above, and letting someone undo it if they disagree).

Hopefully this helps expand on why I didn't immediately make the change in that edit request (since it was already under discussion), and why nobody else had made it by that point (as it was still being discussed on the talk page ''fairly'' actively). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; me &#124; talk to me! 07:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:@Berchanhimez Thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond in such detail. Useful background, much appreciated. DaveReidUK (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::No worries. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about how something works or what the best way to handle something is - I can't promise I'll know the answers nor that I'll be able to reply in a ''super'' timely manner, but I'm happy to help where I can. Feel free to post on my talk page if you need anything. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; me &#124; talk to me! 02:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

804



This ↗ is worth a read. John (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

And comments like this ↗ are not allowed. I'd remove it if I were you. We have WP:NPA ↗ here, and article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for insulting other editors. John (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the link and the advice.
:There's a discussion about Cloudberg on the article talk page; my understanding is that, while much of what's said makes sense, the source isn't generally regarded as reliable.
:Re my comment, it was in response to a gratuitous ad hominem by the poster I was replying to. I acknowledge that that makes me as guilty as they are - I'll gladly withdraw my comment if they withdraw theirs. DaveReidUK (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. I've removed it for you and reminded the other editor to keep it on topic. They called you "naive"; you responded by calling them an "asshole". Such escalation is guaranteed not to lead anywhere good. Don't do it. Yes, I wasn't suggesting that article as a source, but as an aid to understanding the implausibility of the Egyptian report. John (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

PSA flight



How does it make sense to you that the IATA code for the flight is AA5342, the ICAO code is JIA5342, and the callsign is BLUE STREAK? Is it not established that OH is the IATA prefix for PSA flights? BlahVlah (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/JIA5342/history/20250129/2328Z/KICT/KDCA ↗https://www.airnavradar.com/data/flights/OH5342 ↗ Look at the flight numbers here. They are consistent with PSA being the operator. It is literally impossible to mix IATA and ICAO prefixes of different carriers. BlahVlah (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
::I don't have any problem with JIA = PSA, nor with the callsign being Blue Streak (callsigns are paired with ICAO designators). And I agree that IATA have allocated the prefix OH to PSA. But the two problems with showing '''ONLY '''OH5342 as the flight number are (a) that there are no cited sources showing it as such and (b) the flight is commonly being referred to in the media as "American Airlines Flight 5342" (including on the NTSB website at DCA25MA108.aspx (ntsb.gov)) or "AA5342" (for example the Wichita Airport website listed it as such at https://www.flywichita.com/arrivals-departures/, though now renumbered to AA5677). While Google comes up with plenty of hits for "OH5342", none of them are primary sources. Your two links (FlightAware and AirNav) are not primary sources, and in fact AirNav also list it as https://www.airnavradar.com/data/flights/AA5342!
::How about a dual reference in the info box as OH5342/AA5342 (I don't particularly mind which order they are listed in). You're probably aware that many flights carry multiple IATA flight numbers for a variety of reasons. Obviously I don't want to edit war with you, so I won't change it back to only AA5342, but there are enough sources to support showing both the OH and AA designators. What do you think? DaveReidUK (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Airliner specification table changes



Hi, I saw your post in the talk page discussing the new changes to the spec tables (ie gutting them) and I want to ask for your help to try and sway the opinion back to having all variants listed in the specs. As I’m sure you remember it’s been that way for many years and there should be no reason to change it now. If this is important to you could you please consider dropping a message or two into that talk page? I’d really like to get this resolved since I often use those tables for reference and the changes are already making it far more difficult. Thank you! Sylvexter69 (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Sylvexter69, thanks for your support. As you know, I've already made my views clear with a couple of posts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) - Wikipedia ↗, as I see you have, too. I'm certainly not going to give up! Regards. DaveReidUK (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Air India Flight 171 - Aircraft History



Hey. I saw you reverted my edit citing that it was an irrelevant historical incident. However, similar history is present in the aircraft section of Air India Flight 182 ↗. If you feel it should not be there, no issue. But if you can review Aircraft ↗ section of flight 182, it mentions another incident as history. Please take a look as a courtesy. Nuts5070 (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, appreciate you getting in touch. A cracked windscreen isn't a huge deal, it probably wasn't either the first or last instance of that happening on a 787. If you were to look through the Tech Log of any 10-year-old airliner you would find plenty of minor defects and incidents in its history. Yes, it's true that very occasionally a previous incident can be cited as a factor in a subsequent accident (Japan Air Lines Flight 123 - Wikipedia ↗ is one that springs to mind) - but nobody is suggesting that a windscreen cracked and repaired 11 years previously has any bearing on the Air India accident. Likewise I agree that the ground incident involving VT-EFO in 1983 has no relevance to it being blown out of the sky by a bomb two years later - I'm not sure why that reference is there either. I hope that helps. DaveReidUK (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Canterbury Tail. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, :Airbus A350 ↗, but you didn't provide a reliable source ↗. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable ↗. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation ↗, your edit is archived in the page history ↗. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-unsourced1 --> <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 22:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

:Now resolved with appropriate citation. Apologies for any confusion. DaveReidUK (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1322758067 -->

IATA airport code - revision 1354425062



Hello, revision 1354425062 was removed, ostensibly for lack of sources. Could you please clarify what citation is desired, as the content I've added follows the format of the section it lies in (eg: "PDX for Portland, Oregon" vs "SRQ for Sarasota Airport, Sarasota, Florida"). Thanks. Stealthexewastaken (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, the best authority to cite for IATA airport codes is IATA's own "Airline and Location Code Search" website. It's currently tagged as [12] on the Wikipedia IATA Airport Code article.DaveReidUK (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)