User talk:Deeday-UK/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

greetings

Tetra quark has given you Baby food! Baby food promotes WikiLove through tastiness and hopefully this baby food has made your day better. Baby food can be enjoyed by anyone and everyone! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else baby food, whether it be someone with whom you've had disagreements with, a good friend, or a stranger.

Spread the goodness of baby food by adding {{subst:Baby food}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anyeverybody

I know you asked first, and I know you said revert if inappropriate, but, regardless, please don't move pages at SPI again. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Message

Left u a message on my talk page GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RespondedGizzyCatBella (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Falstaff (opera)

Disruptive edit. --Marvel Hero (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Er... that wasn't me, Marvel Hero; I made the edit just before the disruptive one. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect categorization

Hi Deeday-UK! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter that might interest you.  Good faith! Paine  20:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Paine, I've added my bit to the discussion. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless vigilance over the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash article and for safeguarding its factual accuracy. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

F-85

I'm afraid to deal with this redirect because of the stern-looking template.

To me, an F-85 is an Oldsmobile from the early 60s. And the redirect is to a featured article, so a hatnote would feel like clutter.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: I didn't know about the Oldsmobile. A {{Redirect}} hatnote on the XF-85 Goblin article wouldn't be at all inappropriate (many FAs have one). However, thinking about it, the Goblin was a rather obscure and short-lived project that arguably very few readers will know about and associate with the identifier F-85. I would think that the number of readers associating F-85 with the car is far higher (also because the Goblin was an 'XF' and never became a pure 'F'), so I have no objections in changing F-85 to make it redirect to the Cutlass instead (and put a Redirect hatnote there). --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I checked F85 and it certainly has enough uses for a disambiguation page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for this improvement of "Azure Window". I knew it needed a physical description, but I also knew the one I entered was weak. Truly appreciate the terrific wording you've used. Jmg38 (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow signal

What does "spectrogram of the beam" mean? — Omegatron (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

To me it means a spectrogram of what was received by the telescope. I'm not an expert in radio astronomy, but I gather that beam is commonly used in that context to refer to the radio energy as a whole captured by the antenna, and emanating from a particular, narrow direction. I was trying to use heat map and spectrogram in the same sentence (since they are both relevant terms), but in a more meaningful way. Feel free to copy-edit. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Deeday-UK, Thanks for all your edits and especially the one you made to Alan Kulwicki plane crash. It sounds much better now. - Samf4u (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious

aviation, graves and music

Thank you for quality articles such as Ground reaction force, Mildred Joanne Smith and BOAC Flight 783, for images of graves of notable people, for changing from fixed image size to preferred, for service from 2005, and "Great idea this Wikipedia!", - Giulio, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that was unexpected! --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1895 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ansett flight 325

In your recent edit you inserted the link Sidney. It’s not the link you imagine it is! Dolphin (t) 13:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks. That's sorted. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

It's always difficult dealing with TFA. Many editors detest it, as you have to spend a whole day protecting the article. Normally, we block half a dozen IPs and accounts. (I'm not an admin, so I have to rely on others to do that.) To my mind, reverting every change that comes defeats the purpose, but I don't get a lot of time to discuss changes. So anyone attempting a change that's already been debated, like adding Jewish categories to the Feynman article, gets reverted out of hand. (Some people also forget that 3RR does not apply to TFA.) Anyhow, I'm always willing to discuss proposed changes. If you are interested in working on an article on a physicist, taking it to GA and FA, Robert Serber needs a lot of work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with changes being reverted, that were made by editors who were unaware of past discussions and consensus (Jewish categories, last words etc), but here there are babies being thrown away with the bath water (and little explanation), and that puts editors off, and does not help. Consider your last revert of User-duck's edits: the reason given is wrong ("website is for URLs" – No: url= is for URLs; website= is for the website name); if you wanted to restore the paragraph about Feynman's last words/burial place to the consensus version, that's fine, but you also removed some useful clean-up (the mentioned website parameter and the more appropriate {{cite web}} template, which replaced the generic {{citation}}). Same with my earlier three separate edits, which you reverted at once, giving reasons only for two of them.

If you are pressed for time and cannot unpick the changes that need reverting, than at least you could let editors know what those changes are, maybe even say sorry for the blanket-revert, and invite them to re-add the non controversial ones. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversial moves

Hi there, please see WP:RMUM. I suggest following a Move discussion on the talk page before doing moves like Pakistan Naval Air Arm Atlantique shootdown. These names need to follow several policies and WP:COMMONNAME as well. --DBigXray 12:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: well, it seems that all three requirements listed in WP:RMUM are fully satisfied in this case, and there's no sign of past nor present controversy about the title, but thanks for the link anyway. As for WP:COMMONNAME, if a brief title may be adequate for relatively well known events such as the 1960 U-2 incident, I doubt very much Atlantique incident would mean anything to the vast majority of readers, so it's far from a 'commonly recognizable name'. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• WP:RMUM #3 is not fully met here I believe. This move according to me safely falls in the controversial moves. And should have only done post a consensus on talk page, as per the due process for controversial moves. That said, as the move is already done and I am not challenging it, though I am not fully in agreement with the new title. I will jump on in the discussion, if there are other who disagree with the move as well. I messaged here just for future references. thanks for your good work. --DBigXray 14:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Aeroperu 703

Me and another contributer afer looking at reports made it does say that the plane CFIT. Look on the planes talk page please. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I see now. That's rather odd. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Jetstreamer and the warning

Hello D.

Now you stated the other day that my language about stopping rubbish etc was bad and stuff. Yes i understand that with all due respect. Now you also said about this not being therapy... to which I am only here because its a huge interest of mine so bit odd with the therapy part, also about you saying that i am not needed here, I don't mean to be rude but if you also said that about yourself then I don't see the point in you saying that.

Anyways on a brighter note, I know how to reference now so that has helped, and another user has stated that ASN Database is sourced so i can use that. But in all honesty along with me being here as its an interest of mine, there are accidents that are close to me, I don't want to go into detail about which.

With jetstreamer I don't know if he has a problem with me or is making fast edits, but he is undoing a lot of my recent edits saying you cant source Wikipedia pages and stuff to which i wasn't a was linking a word to a page about that part (Pitot static system). But I do give reasons for my edits so I was wondering if you could help me? Now I get I've made a lot of edits and you may think im being silly or something, but I'm not. I enjoy being here and I feel like i cant have a discussion with jetstreamer as well he doesn't respond to messages on his talk page plus i have been polite to him.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: you seem to be getting fixated on very specific types of edits (the | summary = field of aircraft occurrence infoboxes) that are often controversial and that change something that is already generally in good shape and does not require much work done on it, if any.

I would suggest you start from something non-controversial and definitely more useful; for example, talking about infoboxes, the | occupants = field has only recently been introduced in the infobox template, but very few accident articles have it. I'm working my way through them and adding it; I got as far back as 2013, but there are loads more articles that don't have it. Same story for the deprecated | image_size = parameter: it should be replaced with | image_upright = ideally assigning it a value of 1.1, which I find makes the picture neatly fill the infobox without unduly bloating it.

Already three experienced editors have raised doubts [1] about your level of competence and whether you are able to make a positive contribution to the project, and quite frankly I start having doubts myself. If you want to prove them wrong, then try to contribute in a way that is unquestionably constructive, such as by working on the two examples I described above, and in the meantime observe how experienced editors go about editing more controversial stuff, such as causes and contributory factors of air accidents. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2