Talk:1974 British Airways bombing attempt
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Untitled
editYet another Fitzpatrick sockpuppet I suspect. I shan't bother assessing it until it survives deletion.Petebutt (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- What does this mean?? Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Either way, the article had a major error - the date wrong by a year and a day. Maybe it will go but at least its closer to accurate.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong user name see User:Ryan kirkpatrick.Petebutt (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well delete if you want but I reserve the right to recreate as it's a notable topic. Besides the article has been substantially changed since creation Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not enough evidence for a sockpuppet investigation yet. The notability issue is a toss-up I am not sure about. If I nominate it for Afd, then a concensus will decide the fate of it. Any objections.Petebutt (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well delete if you want but I reserve the right to recreate as it's a notable topic. Besides the article has been substantially changed since creation Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Copied from a discussion on User talk:Petebutt
edit== 1973 British Airways bombing attempt == Can you explain this WP:PROD a bit more? On the face of it this looks like a reasonable article - I accept that a failed bombing might not be notable, but I'd like to see an AFD on that really. But I don't want to de-prod it yet in case I'm missing something re sockpuppets. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC) :It bears all the hallmarks of a known sockpuppet user, i.e. Very poor grammar and spelling, obsession with terrorism, writing articles on very obscure non-notable aircraft incidents / accidents. I must apologise; I have the wrong user see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryan kirkpatrick, close but not close enough. It still fits his Modus Operandi.Petebutt (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC) :::Even if notable the major issue is the use of a sockpuppet. which warrants IMMEDIATE deletion.
==Sockpuppet evidence==
Hard evidence is a bit lacking, just the subject matter, the authors grammar and spelling, (as originally posted), and previous sock puppets from the assumed author i.e. User:Ryan kirkpatrickPetebutt (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Deletion?
editThe dichotomy is that this article was written by a blocked editor before the block was enforced. Are blocks retro-active? If so, it would be a shame, as the article has been transformed into acceptability by reputable editors since its creation.Petebutt (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Acceptable form, possibly, but is it actually notable per se and might it be better placed as a paragraph in another article. My contributions were to fix a flawed article (wrong date being the worst element in retrospect) as it existed rather than to preserve it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)