Archives

Archive 1 - 2024 Archive 2 - 2025

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Awesome, thanks a lot for keeping those sharp binocular goggles of yours equipped. Happy holiday! ‎ ‎ B⠄Jayden ^(talk) 07:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I gotchu. You too! Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 08:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuses why so many users seam to have issues with @Ivebeenhacked. I have been pinged several times (without ever asking to be) for complaints about @Ivebeenhacked's overstepping/lack of discussions before taking/making changes to fit their personal opinions. As well as closing a AFD without a discussion due to him/her being the one who created the page. (See B-HNL) Just a teenage railfan (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For B-HNL, you PRODDed the article, you didn't nominate if for AfD. I gave my reasoning and I removed the PROD. If you even read WP:PROD, which I doubt you did, you'll see that it says "Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD". And I'm a him.

Second, it's sort of unbelievable that you're blaming me because someone else is pinging you in discussions you don't want to take part it apparently. If you have that problem, then you need to reach out to Zaptain United, not me. And since you seem to be so worried about my "overstepping/lack of discussions", perhaps you need to read this policy, and this one, too. You can't be the one to say that I'm "overstepping" when you yourself had an article of yours draftified and re-submitted by you without adequate explanation.

Do you have any more questions about me? Or are you gonna keep blaming me for someone else's action? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Just a teenage railfan: I'll simplify this policy (WP:BRD) for you. Zaptain United became bold (b) and changed images. I reverted (r) because it seemed that changes were of no need anyway, and I asked him to discuss (d). This is not a problem, it's protocol. It's not "personal opinions" (for the images), it's redundancy to change the images. So, again, if you got problems with being pinged to discussions you don't wanna take part in, then ask the one who is pinging you to stop, don't blame me for someone else's actions. Hope you understand. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, I have zero issue with being pinged I was using it to show other people have issues with you. I did not blame you for me being pinged. My article Midwest Express Airlines Flight 007 was a case of miscommunication and error on my part and since I re-submitted I have actively been working to fix the mistake and the discussion. You removed a AFD without reason and I did not. Flight 007 never had it's AFD removed during the moves. You removed it. I did no inform you on the talk page as I was looking at the Wikipedia guide and was under the impression it would notify you. You also make changes without discussions as can be seen with your warnings. On a final note when I used him/her you seamed to take offence, I worded it like that as I did not know if you where a Guy,Gal or a non-binary pal. Just a teenage railfan (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you can't tell the difference between a PROD and an AfD. I kindly request you to view this page since you PRODDed B-HNL, you didn't AfD it. It's two different things with two completely different processes. I didn't even have to give a reason but I did anyway. You keep saying "other people" yet it's only one person who has the problem with images. You yourself said "without ever asking to be" pinged, implying that you do mind being pinged. So don't talk to me about that because someone else pinging you is not my issue. Another user's actions are not my actions.

For the pronouns, I didn't mind you saying that. It's to simply state what gender I am for future reference. I didn't take offense to that, it's just that texts don't accurately depict tone, so it looks like I took offense but I didn't.

I understand what your logic about your article was about, therefore, you "overstepped". That's the reference there.

And if you're going to keep contradicting your own problems and blame me for it, even if it was someone else who pinged you, I then request you to leave my talk page. Thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey what is going on here? I just got called here. Uh @Ivebeenhacked I think you are being too aggressive here. I stop pinging you if it is what you want @Just a teenage railfan. But, are we seriously going to need a talk page discussion ever time there is a image change? There actually is a proposal here on infobox images: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Aircraft_infobox_image_proposal Zaptain United (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being aggressive, but if you want to think that, then that's fine. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never accused you of being the pinging me. I would like to get that out there. Just a teenage railfan (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like for you to leave my talk page, for the second time. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

instead of making a new tropic, I'll state it here. I have nominated B-HNL as a AFD Just a teenage railfan (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Ivebeenhacked for collecting more than 155 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's NOV25 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 6,000 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunnypranav: Absolutely no problem. Had quite a time contributing to this project. I'm sure you did, too. See you round soon. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I wrote the 25 December Pauanui crash into the 2025 Aviation wiki. I noticed you removed it and was wondering why? .nzWoolyys (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's because plane crashes like that happen everyday; see this page for that reasoning. It also has no worth of noting down because Wikipedia is not a news site. Those are the main reasons why I reverted that change. Any more concerns you'd like me to address? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks.

Thank you for the info.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year .nzWoolyys (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no problem. Hope 2026 will be an amazing year for you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the article 'Yom Kippur War,' there is language that glorifies and praises the Israeli army, which undermines the neutrality of the text. For instance, this can be seen at the beginning of the sections 'Securing the bridgehead' and 'Response in Israel.' Please revise these sections to ensure a more neutral and objective tone.

In the section 'Final situation on the Egyptian front' the phrase 'Despite Israel's tactical successes' should be revised or removed. These gains were limited and precarious, and describing them as 'successes' lacks the necessary context regarding the overall strategic situation. According to General El-Gamasy, the Israeli military position remained 'weak' for several reasons. I suggest rephrasing this to ensure a more balanced representation of the military reality at that stage. ~2025-43953-72 (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring this message. I'm simply out of town until 2 January. Goodbye. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The allotted time has expired ~2026-88888 (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's not neutral about "Securing the brigehead" section and "Response in Israel". I'd appreciate you point to me what seems to not be neutral to you. For the "Final situation on the Egyptian front", I've changed a few words. See how it works. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Securing the bridgehead" it begins with: "Despite the success the Israelis were having on the west bank," which is considered biased. Similarly, in the section "Response in Israel" it starts with: "Though the war reinforced Israel's military deterrence, it had a stunning effect on the population in Israel," and this is also considered a form of bias. ~2026-17200-3 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't you answered me yet? ~2026-24855-5 (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what changes you want made to the sentences you already highlighted? I have no idea what to change them into. Sorry. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Despite the success the Israelis were having on the West Bank” → After the Israelis had secured the bridge.

“Though the war reinforced Israel's military deterrence” → After the war. ~2026-25879-2 (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased those sentences. See how it works. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is an error at the beginning of the 'Securing the bridgehead' section. ~2026-28382-4 (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what happened there but it's fixed now. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the caption for the image to 'Egyptian tanks invading Sinai' instead of 'An Egyptian tank in the Sinai'.

Official photo: Omar-151 A (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I added "the" before Sinai. I'm assuming you're the Temporary Account above. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't the image used? Omar-151 A (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page of that article. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The image is excellent; it includes two Egyptian pictures and one Syrian picture, compared to three Israeli pictures. So, what is the problem then? Omar-151 A (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove that image. See this comment in the talk page of the Yom Kippur War article. Gives an explanation of why the collage is disagreed to use. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 09:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the solution? Omar-151 A (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to go to the talk page and give good reasonings as to why using the collage is a better idea than a map with policy explanation. That's about it. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We could put both of these images in the infobox to compare the damage to the aircraft after the go around to when the aircraft was undamaged. They are both taken at the same angle so readers could compare the damage. It makes for a clearer comparison between the aircraft when it was undamaged and when it suffered damage after its first go-around. Zaptain United (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People will already know how an aircraft will be looking like before. A comparison is redundant when they can clearly see the damage done already and that's what I think is important. Simultaneously, there's nothing wrong with the current image in the infobox. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wait I just realized the current image is in a previous livery. The moon was removed from the aircraft engine in 2019. That means all the images of the aircraft except the photo of the aircraft taken right before the crash are in a previous livery. Zaptain United (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to see if I can get another editor to get permission for this image since it shows the aircraft in the current livery it had when it crashed.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9674949 Zaptain United (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? For the first time in here, I agree with you. I don't think we should change the current image in the infobox until the author in jetphotos agrees usage rights. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we use the image taken of the aircraft right before it crashes as a temporary image. The aircraft is not too damage, and the image isn't too blurry. Zaptain United (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to. I'd say leave the article alone and wait for what the jetphoto guy needs to say. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I genuinely appreciate this message of yours. I hope the same for you and thank you for this message. May 2026 go according to plan for you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zaptain_United#August_2025

You gave me a edit warning in August, but this editor is still reverting even after I go on the talk page and getting consensus. They called it "imaginary consensus" and have reverted my edits 3 times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippine_Airlines_Flight_475&action=history Zaptain United (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was one 1 editor who dropped their opinion. I think more editors dropping their opinion in the discussion would be the next wise step. Instead of pinging every single editors in that discussion, it'd be helpful to notify the relevant WikiProject talk page. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I already posted there and got no response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Could_we_change_the_image_for_Philippine_Airlines_Flight_475? Zaptain United (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 10:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Volten001: Thank you for this. I wish you all the same and have a happy 2026 ahead of you. Goodbye. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome and thanks for them good wishes. Nice time! Volten001 ^☎ 02:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on N767BA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Carson5034 (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article Operation Gang Bust has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Hi! I reviewed the page you created yesterday as part of the New Page Patrol, and I'm afraid I don't think the topic is notable - see WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING and WP:BREAKING. I have proposed it be deleted using WP:PROD. If you (or anyone else) disagrees, all you have to do is remove the PROD template and improve the article. If nobody edits it it will be deleted in about a week. If you think this event will have lasting significance and should be in the Wikipedia, could you please read the guidelines I linked above and edit it to show how the event fulfills the criteria? Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia!

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Lijil (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lijil: Thank you for notifying me and for that review and advice. I'll try to save the article once I'm free. Goodbye. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]