Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AlphaBetaGamma was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aeroflot Flight 9981 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zaptain United! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Zaptain United! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Lolzer3k 14:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Aeroflot Flight 9981. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and sources that provide significant/in-depth continued coverage of the crash (see WP:N(E)). I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to China Eastern Airlines Flight 586. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because the references need to be properly cited. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw that you reverted my edit on Colgan Air Flight 3407 to use File:Crash site of Colgan Air Flight 3407, Feb 2009.jpg in the article. Now your reasoning for this was "I disagree with changing the image as the image of the tail as it is a pretty infmaous image for thsi crash and also the image you replace is just a bunch of scatter wreckage." However, this is not what the fair use rationale on the file states; there is no discussion in the article about the image and how "infamous" it is. The reason why I removed the image is because it does not pass the first non-free content criterion, which states "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." A free equivalent exists at File:Colgan Air Flight 3407（N200WQ） wreckage.jpg, which also shows the tail wreckage of the aircraft and serves the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free use image. It does not matter that what it is depicting isn't as clear, a free-use alternative exists and the non-free use image cannot be included in Wikipedia based on policy. Thank you. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 03:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you keep adding links to articles like you did here and here. Please see this policy. If you don't understand, please tell me and I'll explain it to you. Also, you've been adding the "injuries" parameters to infoboxes. However, if no one was injuries, there's no point in adding those. Finally, please stop repeatedly changing images in infoboxes. It might not sound like a big deal but aviation articles' images are being changed according to the tastes of different users, and consensus reduces churn. And, as recommended by WP:AIR, it's best to get consensus first. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaptain United. It is recommended by WP:AIR to gain consensus first before changing the image. There's absolutely no need to change the previous image. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I reverted your edits again. While not absolutely wrong, adding unecessary extra words to captions is nearly always unhelpful. The manual of style puts a lot of effort into suggesting captions are targetted and succinct. WP:CAPTION. Please also be aware of WP:BRD the bold, revert, discuss cycle which is the polite way to interact here - the "D" bit is the bit that is best if your edits have been reverted. Maungapohatu (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to link MOS:CAPTION after reverting this edit, and found it has already been shared recently. Captions are not meant to be complete sentences, and are intended to be brief and succinct, per the MOS. And there's no way that adding the word "photographed" to a caption of a photograph of an airplane in this context improves things. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Boeing 727-264 XA-MEM, número de serie 22414 y línea 1748.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:N827AX image.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon! Based on a quick review of some of your recent contributions, I'd strongly recommend you take a moment to familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

A few to start with:

• WP:Consensus
• WP:Notability and WP:Notability (events)
• WP:Reliable sources
• WP:Manual of style

Also worth taking a moment to review the following essays:

• WP:CIR
• WP:ATA

Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. I noticed your comments at this AfD and wanted to follow up on your talk page. Your removal of a maintenance tag without addressing the issues is something that you should, by now, understand is not acceptable. This led me down the rabbit hole of reviewing a few more of your edits, and things like restoring a article deleted through AfD, creating blank draft articles as you didhere and here (you should be using your sandbox for things like that), your pattern of making controversial changes focusing on aircraft images without seeking consensus (too many edits to link here), and edits that don't seem to serve any purpose or are otherwise nonsensical (like here, here, and here).

I and others have made numerous attempts to help mentor and guide you to grow as an editor, but I'm not sure it's coming through. You are developing a pattern of editing that is verging on disruptive. I suspect that if you're unable to navigate yourself to a more collaborative and less combative approach, you'll soon find yourself the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI. nf utvol (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how these edits are ''nonsensical". Maybe the fish edit was unneeded but the Uberlingen edit was me trying to add a non free image and the Turkish 981 one was me trying to simplify the caption. Maybe I should explain that in the edit summary so it avoid confusion but I believe they serve a purpose even if it is minor. I am not committing vandalism. Zaptain United (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps nonsensical was too strong a word. The fish linking was a textbook example of WP:OVERLINK (again, something someone with over 3,500 edits should know), the Turkish Airlines photographed -> seen edit doesn't really seem like a simplification. The Überlingen edit looked like you'd just added a link to a non-existent image, which it now sounds like you'd added but was deleted due to a poor fair use rationale (which I see you've had a history of doing).

I didn't accuse you of vandalism, I said you were building towards a pattern of disruptive editing. Disruptive editing and vandalism are two different things...again, something you should probably understand by now. I recommend you slow down, focus on making a smaller number of higher quality edits, and really work on understanding the various policies and guidelines that I and others have recommended you review. nf utvol (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I appreciate you being more civil than other editors although I still disagree with your original comment. Sorry, for replying late. Zaptain United (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 342 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 342 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

11WB (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't overwrite everyone's image in Wikipedia Commons, you went too far.

Don't do this again, and some version you uploaded are not better than original versions. 210.242.144.235 (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what images? All, I did was remove images that are basically duplicates. Others are cropped images that are really similar to other cropped images. Some of the images I requested to delete were cropped images that I did myself. What do mean by "some version you uploaded". Most of them are just duplicates or very similar to other ones. How are my cropped images worst? Take for example, Southern 242. I cropped the main image to move the aircraft more to the center since it was photograph with it being in the left side. However, there was another cropped image, so I replace that because it cropped a little too much. Your message to me is pretty vague and you should see that I'm not overwriting everyone's image, I just removing duplicates. Zaptain United (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zaptain United. Thank you for your work on Japan Air Lines Flight 813. Another editor, 11wallisb, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Some of the inline citations requiring numerical reordering. Not sure about the incidents actual notability without further assessment, however the article appears okay.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|11wallisb}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

11WB (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Crash of a McDonnell Douglas MD-11F in Subic Bay.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFC § Unacceptable use which lists "situations where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions", A photo from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. The photo is owned by Reuters (a press agency) per this source and has not received any critical commentary by reliable sources. Hence, this file does not meet fair use. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Wreckage of a McDonnell Douglas MD-11F in Subic Bay.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the above basically. The photo is owned by the Associated Press per this source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:HZ-AIH wreckage.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:RA-85816 Wreckage.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Albertina Transair Sweden.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Air France Flight 296Q Wreckage.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:CCCP-42369 image.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zaptain United. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:China Eastern Airlines Flight 586, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 971 was a redirect per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroflot Flight 971. You converted it to an article, then moved that article to Draft space, which created a cross-namespace redirect that was then deleted by Liz, who appears to have not seen the unusual history of the page. Please recreate this redirect (or maybe Liz should move the page back and convert it back to a redirect to preserve the history) and the others that may have been deleted, including 1952 Leningrad mid-air collision and probably more. In the future, if you want to turn a redirect into an article, just create the draft in Draft space and then go through the normal Articles for Creation process. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wreckage of Manx2 Flight 7100.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 16:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page 2024 Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport runway collision has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A courtesy note to let you know that planespotters.net is not a reliable source WP:RS - see WP:PLANESPOTTERS. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you suspect someone of sockpuppetry, please don't tag them as socks if they aren't blocked as you did here. And especially don't tag it as a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet if it hasn't been confirmed by a checkuser. In fact, I don't think non-admins are even allowed to add sockpuppetry tags on other users' user pages. Also this isn't this first time you did this, you also did it about a month ago here. So next time you suspect someone socking, follow the instructions at WP:SPI. Prothe1st (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure they don't cause any more damage.  Zaptain United (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t. It causes confusion for everyone. Especially administrators who may think the account has been blocked and confirmed by a checkuser. What you should do instead is start a sockpuppet investigation and let the administrators investigate. --Prothe1st-- 11:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The present text for the caption of the actual plane "9M-MRD, the aircraft involved in the shootdown, seen in 2011" is bordering on euphemistic evasion IMO. The plane wasn't "involved in" a shootdown, it was shot down. My proposed simpler text made perfect sense "9M-MRD, the aircraft shot down, seen in 2011" is a standard abbreviated form of "9M-MRD, the aircraft which was shot down, here seen in 2011" I can't offhand remember the grammatical term for such abbreviated forms. I don't claim this phrasing is perfect but it attempts to bypass any implication that the plane was somehow peripherally involved in this incident. Pincrete (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Kvinnen. I noticed that you recently removed content from 1965 in aviation without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kvinnen (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just put the content in the wrong location of the article. I make sure to write down a edit summary next time. Zaptain United (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article USAir Flight 499 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USAir Flight 499 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zaptain United! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Is "Night Owl" the aircraft name for Western Airlines Flight 2605?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Cookies!
		Starlet147 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Baked these. Starry~~(Starlet147) 21:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Zaptain United (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:An aerial view of the forward fuselage.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Rediske Air into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).

When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this[1] wasn't a WP:MINOR edit. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

alright i understand Zaptain United (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zaptain United. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Air Tahiti Flight 805, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page AirJet Angola Flight 100, has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page CommuteAir Flight 4339 has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zaptain United! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Could this make USAir Flight 499 notable?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, @Zaptain United, you were explained by someone about implicit consensus. They said "no one objected, so that was an implicit consensus for it. You then tried to build a consensus to change it again, but didn't manage to gain that consensus". That's why the 10 years matter. Arguing to someone like that is simply nonsensical. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hurricane Wind and Fire was:

The draft appears to be a nearly exact copy of the article that was redirected after the AfD discussion, with the addition of one paragraph in the Aftermath section. Perhaps this new information would be better added into an article about the improvement act in 1987 or at the Erie International Airport article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:USAir Flight 499 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 05:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to UPS Airlines Flight 1307. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye in spotting that probable sock...however, you should not have notified them as you did. Per the guidance at WP:SPI: You do not need to notify the accused editors that you have opened an investigation on them, and in most cases should not. An administrator or clerk can handle this if necessary. I'm going to reiterate what I said above: slow down. This is one more example where taking a few minutes to read relevant policies before editing would help you a lot, and potentially save yourself and others a lot of headache. nf utvol (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks for the advice. I just saw a potential sockpuppet and wanted them to be investigated as soon as possible. I wanted to see this potential sockpuppet's defense to being accused so I went to their talk page. Zaptain United (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am still mostly learning Wikipedia editing based on experiences and events like sockpuppet invetigations. I had no idea they even existed until I find the investigation for @Yousuf31. Zaptain United (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good and I doubt it'll create any major problems, but still, I cannot recommend enough that you should consider slowing down and taking more time to peruse policies, guidelines, and essays before engaging. You absolutely did the right thing pinging the admin that was previously involved with the suspected sockmaster, but it's worth taking the next step and reading through the relevant guidance available when it comes to sockpuppets before actively engaging in administrative recommendations. nf utvol (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you placed {{sock|confirmed}} on a blocked user's page. Please see Template:Sockpuppet/doc § Usage: In general, this template should only be applied by Administrators or Clerks as part of the Sockpuppet investigations process. Sometimes an admin/clerk forgets to add the tag, but other times it's deliberate, for a variety of reasons. So if you think you've found a mistake, you should ask the blocking admin about it. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

alright I think I am just going to just stay out of the sockpuppet investigation process for now. I need time to read the rules. Zaptain United (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zaptain United! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Could this article meet Good Article status and if it does how long do I have to wait for a review to begin?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to TAM Airlines Flight 3804. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zaptain United! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Is this a reliable source to use?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zaptain United! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How much would I have to improve for this to meet good articles status?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

final report, aircraft information and this. I tried to find non-portuguese news talk about it, but most of them are blog and travel. Shaqil (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of pinging individual editors as you did here, you might do better to just post a notice on the relevant WikiProject talk pages. Most users who are interested in these types of discussions are already watching those pages. - ZLEA ^TǀC 22:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I was just bored of waiting for a editor to showed up on the talk page Zaptain United (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've tried to create the article for flight 2300 but you don't have enough information. I created the article on Spanish Wikipedia. If you think you can, you can translate the text I already researched about the accident to complete your article. Felix202 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews can cite to Wikipedia? TBB (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to remain calm sometimes when situations like this happen. I did try to remain calm but when you threaten with a block for merely wanting to adjust the article to the title, you get a little frustrated. 

This is an example of me just getting screw over. A sockpuppet editor moved ValuJet Airlines Flight 592 to ValuJet Flight 592 in 2021. I move the bold text of the flight number in the intro to ValuJet Flight 592 to match the article name. @Doniago reverts my edit saying that Valujet Airlines is the correct title despite the article title being just Valujet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ValuJet_Flight_592&oldid=1307968006

They then accuse me of vandalism and threaten me with a ban despite the article already being name ValuJet Flight 592. I explain to them that "I was merely adjusting the article to fit the name. I actually prefer using ValuJet Airlines Flight 592." I change the article name to match the airline name after that.

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

They then say it is nonsensical for blaming an editor who was actually a sockpuppet for my edits despite me basing my edits on their edit so I can match the title. They then say I should have ask on the talk page before making the edit, but the article was already called ValuJet Flight 592 for 4 YEARS so why would I think I need to seek consensus for this change when the article title was already changed. I than change the article title in his favor only to get promptly reverted by another editor not happy with me sastifying this editor's "request". I than go to the talk page to settle where the original title form 2021 is kept. Wow just wow.

Zaptain United (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, to respond to you here: it is exactly 40 characters; the lead states that Cali is the destination, while Buga is the location of the crash, supported by the infobox calling it the site, so I doubt you're right on that count either. It's not up to you to define what details are "unneeded", especially since it's not like the location is something trivial. The 40-character limit ensures that it's simple enough, so I see no reason to further simplify short descriptions. However, I will take your word for it, and respect convention. I am unfamiliar with the subject matter and area, I add short descriptions to any article I come across, so please excuse my ignorance. If you would've expounded upon your rationale, I wouldn't have to revert you again. Either way, happy editing and holidays, it's lio! | talk | work 04:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand. I should have expanded my reasoning earlier in the first revert. I should probably remember not everyone here is familiar in the aviation part of wikipedia. Zaptain United (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your understanding, and I'm sure you do great work :) it's lio! | talk | work 04:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheInevitables was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2025 Sudanese Air Force Antonov An-26 crash and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheInevitables (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not meant as an attack towards you, but please explain how you could ever consider a mid-air collision to be a "run of the mill incident". I'm sorry but that may just be the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen anyone type in my time on Wikipedia; I cannot think of many things which are less run-of-the-mill than a midair collision. It is beyond exceedingly rare, so much so that every single one that has ever happened in history has received extensive media coverage both within and outside of aviation circles. If you are unfamiliar with the rarity of things such as midair collisions, please do not create AFDs based on that notion. Just a thought... Electricmemory (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I do agree with a lot of your opinions elsewhere on this talk page about aviation-related articles, but this is a bit silly. Electricmemory (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it is because it is between two general aviation planes and only 2 occupants combined from both planes. Also, the article is basically a stub. None of the 2 people are notable on their own and there are 5 other mid-air collisions involving general aviation aircraft this year and they don't have articles or were deleted at afd. I don't see anything notable about this recent collision that makes it stick out from the others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mid-air_collisions#Involving_civilians Zaptain United (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaptain United. Happy New Year! Wishing you a year filled with knowledge, collaboration, and meaningful contributions. Thank you for your dedication to building free, reliable, and accessible knowledge for everyone around the world. May the new year bring you inspiration, successful edits, respectful discussions, and strong community spirit. Here’s to another year of improving Wikipedia together! Warm regards, — A fellow Wikipedian (Iluziya7 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Zaptain United (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaptain United. Okey (Iluziya7 (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

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

Volten001 ^☎ 10:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zaptain United! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How long do I have to wait for a reponse?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider how other editors may perceive your repeated praise of WilliamJE [2] [3]. William was blocked personal attacks, a topic on which you have also been warned. If you were to end up on WP:DRAMABOARD, your comments about William are unlikely to elicit sympathy. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I understand. I was just trying to express my thoughts out. I don't support his personal attacks, but I think some editors were unfair to him with trying to force him to change his signature. I read the 2020 discussion on that, and it made me have some sympathy for him. I am also interested in William since he was on Wikipedia for so long and am fascinated with the drama surrounding him. Zaptain United (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support or condone his sockpuppeting, but I am interested in how he managed to evade detection for a while. His long experience on wikipedia made him try to avoid being too similar to his blocked account. Anyway, enough ramblings. I am just interested in the fascinating and complex tale of WilliamJE. Zaptain United (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting that you're aware of a discussion from years before you edited. Given that and recent discussions, I'm not sure if you're trolling poorly or trying to be blocked. Please stop regardless or you will end up at ANI. Star Mississippi 15:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing Olympic Airways Flight 411 and saw it was nominated in the past by William. I clicked on his username and found out he had been banned. I than check his talk page and found all the past discussions on his signature and it led me down a rabbit hole. Zaptain United (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will remove my message at his sockpuppet account because that was me just rambling, but I want to keep the message on his main talk page because I was venting my frustrations out at the time and I generally wish him good luck outside Wikipedia. I unironically spent a lot of time going through his talk page and contributions because it was interesting drama to read. Whatever, I am done replying to this. What's with the stalking of my contributions anyway? I am just trying to avoid controversy right now. Zaptain United (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stalking your contributions in the slightest. I've watched your talk page since you and I interacted somewhere. I saw the post at the top of this thread, not any of your contributions until I clicked the link. Star Mississippi 16:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry for accusing you, but I am in tough position on Wikipedia right now. I feel defensive right now and on edge. I been trying to lay low for a little bit. Zaptain United (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Here's my .02 which I generally suggest to folks in a tough position (your words) or who are bumbling into things beyond their experience. Focus on articles, it's why we're all here. Forget about project space and definitely don't communicate with blocked users unless you know them before. Star Mississippi 18:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that I have concluded any replies I wanted to do, I am just done. Zaptain United (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pinging me and leave me alone. I want to focus on my personal life. I will always appreciate the editors that I had polite conversations with and respect them. Zaptain United (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, I can now take a break Zaptain United (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I don't care that it displays properly on a mobile screen, the fact remains that these long links are not properly suited for smaller laptop displays. Did you think I was making these edits for arbitrary reasons? Jay D. Easy (t) 14:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Go seek consensus for your changes. Your simplifying changes to a bunch of templates. Zaptain United (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should self revert your changes and go to a talk page ALRIGHT. Zaptain United (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And you still don't understand how consensus works. You made the edits, someone reverted you. The onus is on you to get consensus for the edits. Canterbury Tail talk 20:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you meant 'you're' instead of 'your', I honestly don't know what you're trying to say. Again, these are not arbitrary stylistic edits. Some of these links are so long that they overlap the text in the next column on smaller displays so as to become illegible. Also please refrain from forking this discussion onto my talk page. WP:TALKFORK. Jay D. Easy (t) 21:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 21:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You've said you're leaving, but drive by edits and comments aren't it. Should. you wish to return to productive editing, you're welcome to request an unblock. Star Mississippi 21:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]