Talk:Armavia Flight 967

Comment

220.233.176.13 10:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC) - Multiple sources (Russian Govt, Airbus) have contradictory information

Why is this encyclopedic? Lots of planes have crashed over the years. - Brian Kendig 14:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And a large number of them have been documented in Wikipedia _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

True, I agree with UkPaolo. Besides, plane crashes are not that common nowadays. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur as well, it is worthy of an article. Can someone please verify the times? The way it reads right now it was a 15 minute flight. Is that true? Davidpdx 18:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was true that it took off at 1:45 local and was to land at 2:00 local. However, even though it was going north, Russia and Armenia are in different time zones. I'll fix the article. --Golbez 18:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(this article) was created because people might want to get extra information about it than the small amounts of information provided by brief news stories Jam 00:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Who removed that pic of the tail being salvaged from the sea? it was a good one Jam 03:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"...the third highest death toll of any accident involving an Airbus A320 after Gulf Air Flight 072 and TAM Airlines Flight 3054" - that's wrong, because TAM 3054 had crashed in 2007 a yeaer after the Armavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.119.201 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Article revision deletion

I have removed one revision from this page's history because it (and its edit summary) contained personally idenfitiable information of a person. - Mark 02:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've updated "The Plane" section of the article to reflect that the aircraft was not actually owned by Armavia as previously suggested but was in fact on a 3yr operating lease.--Pianoman1407 10:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Was it really appropriate to put this article under protection after one vandalism? Quite often we go through 5 or 6 vandalisms before we do that. As the situation continues, I think anyone should be able to edit it. Please let me know if I missed something. Clarkefreak ∞ 03:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there were several others that contained personal information about a Wikipedia member, so they were removed from the article's history. In light of that, semiprot is indeed reasonable. --Golbez 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree! There doesn't seem any need to have protected this article in the first place. Blocking the user concerned would have sufficed. In any case, this article is linked from the main page, and per WP:PROTECT "articles linked from the main page should NOT be protected (full or semi) except to clean up vandalism. Protection should be kept to 10-15 minutes in these cases.". I have, accordingly, unprotected the page. The vandalism levels on this article can easily be contained. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright Violation

I hope that someone contacted the photographer of this photo directly as many photographers on airliners.net have gotten very upset by the unauthorized usage of their images-Reid A. 03:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If credit is given to the photographer, what can they really do about it? --JOK3R 20:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sue? Because they question its being used as fair use? Which may well be accurate. --Golbez 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Airliners.net terms require written permission of the photographer before photos can be republished. [1] I have tagged the image disputed fair use. -- Hawaiian717 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I do believe it qualifies for being used as fair use for the same reason as the image at J. K. Rowling's biography. I mean the picture of the plane is really important for the article; however I could accept if it was deleted, but I do believe it adds significantly to the article! -- Snailwalker | talk 21:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on the image's talk page; I suggest we continue the discussion there. -- Hawaiian717 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the article until we have found a solution for this dispute. The article is linked from the main page, and we shouldn't display copyright-disputes, as it could pose a legal problem for us. Snailwalker | talk 16:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As I just posted on the image's talk page, I found a photo of this aircraft on Wikimedia Commons and added it to this article. -- Hawaiian717 04:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Only Russian and Armenian citizen?

Here is a site talking about a Georgian citizen: Civil.ge

Denial, but the name differs...(Georgy Akopian/Askan Manvelian): Interfax.com

---another one--- in the news there is talk that another armavia was destroyed in a major fire at Brussels airport.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/05/D9BA4F59-D401-47F8-BD00-8FE72FB0CAC7.html

Complete re-write needed?

Now that the final accident report has been published for this crash (Final Accident Report), this entire article needs to be re-written with reference only to the facts contained in the report.

Does anyone fancy giving it a go? If not in the next couple of weeks I will do so myself. 82.44.26.36 08:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done - I had some time on my hands so have re-written the article. Any further comments or amendments are welcome.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armavia Flight 967. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060504181738/http://www.airdisaster.com:80/news/0506/02/news.shtml to http://www.airdisaster.com/news/0506/02/news.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)