User talk:Airplaneman/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

A barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For most prudent and judicious use of the word "irony". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Airplaneman ✈ 18:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Brahman

Hello its nirbhao khalsa you protected the page brahman you gave a example of a hymn of guru granth sahib ji taking the shabad brahman did yu know the exact meaning ok leave just tell me which brahaman you are talking about the brahma the hindu lord or the brahman highest cast in hinduism as you written the meaning of that line as 'everything we see is menigestation of brahman' and yu also written that ik onkar is part of om of hinduism not and never ik onkar meaning that almighty god is one so remove thats i giving the proof from guru granth sahib lines that brahmanism is not acceptable in guru granth sahib say'dubida na pado har hor pujeyie made masan na jayi' its mean do not go into trouble and do not worship stones and tombs so how can you say ik onkar is part of om our religion is totally different from yours so kindy remove this section brahman in sikhism we do nor accept this or i will tell the highest authority if sikhsism akal takht and we will talk a strict action against you its be aware posting things like this and remove this section 'brahman in sikhism ' only we have no problem with this whole article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirbhao khalsa (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nirbhao. Wikipedia isn't the place to push your/your group's own point of view. An encyclopedia doesn't work like that. I'm sorry if the content of the article offends, but please don't make legal threats. I'm sorry you immediately assumed I was of a different religion than you. I don't publicize that online for a reason: it doesn't matter. What matters is reliably sourced and objective content. A key quality of learning to be a productive member of society is to recognize opposing and sometimes offensive viewpoints and learn how to coexist harmoniously and engage in constrictive dialogue with those. It's something to consider. Airplaneman ✈ 21:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Try to understand man just remove that section i have gave you legal resion for removing this then why aren't you remove this section tell me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirbhao khalsa (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I addressed your concerns in my previous response. Airplaneman ✈ 21:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bro its sad you are not removing you have forced me to launch a fir against this page to the highest authority of sikhism Now they will see everything i have you legal resion and proof from guru granth but you are removing its mean you are attaching the sikhism with hinduism i tell yu we our religion is totally different so Do you want me to launch a fir against this article or you can simply remove that section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirbhao khalsa (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

RPP Westborough, Massachusetts

Hi there, I noticed you were the admin that protected Westborough, Massachusetts, due to the vandalism by an IP spectrum we've had. We're still having problems and I fear the vandalism will start right back up once the protection ends August 18, as the vandal is still active and ready to post to this page [[1]]. Would you be able to extend the page protection by another 2 weeks, or even a month while this is sorted out? Thanks, Garchy (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Extended by 2 weeks. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 14:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Move protection?

What's with the indefinite move protection for Disney Channel (Canada) and La chaîne Disney? There was no move warring whatsoever on either page! At least make the protection expire at the same time as the other one if you don't want to remove it altogether... Mdrnpndr (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed. Airplaneman ✈ 12:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please protect the 054A page and stop RovingPersonalityConstruct

"Airplaneman ", please stop RovingPersonalityConstruct from vandalizing this article. Keep kept trolling this article for over a month. Please see the above contents for reasons. He was proven wrong on many occasions yet he kept on going. His most laughable and lame excuse is to call other people's source unreliable and remove them all together, even with highly reliable source such as Jane's. He was proven wrong and made major mistake on the content's date information yet he did not even bother to explain, also. It seems that he has problem counting from 1 to 18.

Please stop him from vandalizing this article.

Thank you,

--199.116.175.73 (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The article was fully protected yesterday until the end of the month. Airplaneman ✈ 14:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Airplaneman. Could you please also protect other pages that RovingPersonalityConstruct has vandalized, such as Type 99 tank, Type 093 submarine. He removed so much sourced content that it is absurd. There are many people spend hours adding sourced materials yet he just blindly remove them all and call them "unreliable" source !

It will be much appreciated if you can revert his vandalism.

Thank you,

--199.116.175.73 (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why the edits are vandalism. What I see is a serious edit war. Sure, one of you may be more right than the other, but trading punches is just going to bruise you both and spill blood onto the battlefield (article). Please take a break from all of the reverting! Airplaneman ✈ 01:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit lock page: Disney La Chaîne

Can you edit the Disney La Chaîne to add a meger note with the talk here: Merger Proposal to resolve the issue at least in regards to the redirect. Spshu (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose this request: this page was protected for a reason. Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • So, oppose a request for dialogue? Airplaneman ✈ 17:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This is not a request for dialogue. This is a blatant attempt to push through the user's preference with regards to this page. Where are this user's actual arguments (particularly comparisons with other pages)? I find particularly intriguing the phrase used to describe one of the sources: "personal professional" – quite a nonsensical oxymoron indeed, but more importantly an attempt to match a square citation with a round policy. (Also, the discussion was started on the wrong talk page.) Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Airplaneman, I guess I should request that Disney Channel (Canada) be edited to post the merger discussion notice. How should I post at Télétoon Rétro? As that is an alternative merger candidate, but isn't the one I am proposing.

Mdrnpndr, the discussion as such is at the correct talk page per WP:merger: "Step 1: Create a discussion: This is usually done on the proposed destination page's talk page,..." Reason is at the discussion section required. But you are attempting to squash notice to any one following Disney La Chaîne to find the merger discussion. Now, who does not want it to be discussed? Who quashed further discussion at AfD about Disney XD (AU) under their previous name of User:Dogmaticeclectic improperly did a User_talk:Spshu#Non-admin_closure. How about ignoring arguments for votes to get what he wants. Now Mdrnpndr making declaration of what source are reliable when he previously stated I cannot have an opinion about notability and primary sources. Spshu (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a merge proposal is preposterous, but let's try one thing at a time. Airplaneman ✈ 01:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hu? Merge proposal is all I am proposing at this time, which requires messages at both articles involved, which might drag in another article. I am just pointing out that Mdrnpndr likes only his judgement to matter and has done so in incorrectly closing a deletion/merge discussion by using voting instead of votes supported by guidelines. So you can see that his objections are an OWN/Gaming action. Spshu (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not ignore your previous messages, so I understand what you're saying. This dispute seems to go beyond a merger proposal, which, if emphasized, could encumber other aspects of coming to a resolution. Airplaneman ✈ 15:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, seeing as the merge discussion looks at least somewhat productive, I'll go ahead and post the proper notifications on the pages. Airplaneman ✈ 15:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Mdrnpndr took advantage of the fact that you did not lock Template:Corus Entertainment remove my edits that match the sources with a false claim of that it doesn't follow the source. Which returns it to a state less in line with the sources. I have embedded the sources in the template and started a discussion on the talk page. Would you please page protect the template and Corus Entertainment as he will probably start removing the source paragraph that come from the same source that are at issue at the template. Or should I ask again at RfPP? Spshu (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that page protection is not preventative. What are the false claims? Where specifically do they differ from the sources? (I'm not sure that I'm understanding what's on the template's talk page.) Airplaneman ✈ 17:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RovingPersonalityConstruct is back again vandalizing other pages

Hello Airplaneman, RovingPersonalityConstruct is back again, this time he is vandalizing other page with similar behievors. Please take a look at his edits. Weishi Rockets, Type 99 tank, Shenyang WS-10. I have reverted his edits. It will be great if you could protect those pages as well.

Thank you,

--199.116.175.73 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm really not sure what to say, other than that the result of continued edit warring is heightened annoyance for all parties. Airplaneman ✈ 01:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection

You protected Shit (disambiguation) with a summary "Persistent vandalism." Actually the only vandalism in 2015 was [this edit back in July.

Can you un-protect please.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC).

It's been done. Thanks for the note. Airplaneman ✈ 17:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Knanaya

Subject: Knanaya

User: Cuchullain - Unhealthy edits and policing. Using widely unapproved published material to ascertain his/hers POV. Eg: Works of "Swiderski"

Action: Banning the user or Removing citations by Swiderski. Maintain NPOV on religious matter.

Why: To allow good faith edits when no properly published materials are available due to the existence of rich oral traditions. To remove and prevent peacock ideas being propagated as the voice of Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.199.145 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: Airplaneman ✈ 03:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Airplaneman. I've explained the situation on the talk page in some detail. Apparently the above editor doesn't like what some of the reliable sources for the subject have to say, leading to a series of unhelpful and/or disruptive changes and edit warring.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection request

Since we're getting into editconflicts and maybe a protection conflict, would you be willing to handle something for me? If so, see the RFPP request for Margaret Sanger and the "Re: Margaret Sanger protection" section on my talk page; I can do it, of course, but I'm not sure what the best option is. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw it earlier today on RFPP, and haven't come to a decision that I myself like. I will definitely give it another look when I have the chance! Currently, I am leaning towards additional full protection time. Airplaneman ✈ 20:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Request protection

You protected page a few weeks ago for vandalism. Well, it has expired and the vandalism has returned. Please protect again. Thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister, 15:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I'll keep an eye on it. Airplaneman ✈ 17:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister, 18:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Request protection

You protected the Katherine Wentworth page a week ago for unsourced content. Well, it has expired and the same user (using a different IP) has returned. Please protect again (and also the Bobby Ewing page). Thanks.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Trying another month. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 14:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Droppin' work on your lap

Hey. Do you happen to know where we could find dates or a timeline for Apple hardware? A user has repeatedly changed the introduction year of the Apple Monitor II to 1977 and that info was added to Apple displays - into a statement that it was introduced years after 1980. --Kizor 22:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! The user's manual was published in 1982. This site also cites the introduction date of the monitor as 1982: The Apple Monitor II was designed and released in 1982 nearly five years after the Apple II. It was purposely built to complement the Apple II. It therefore seems that both 1984 and 1977 are incorrect. Airplaneman ✈ 17:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

persian empire

Hello please note it: the ancient persian peoples were Achaemenid and sassanid empires. They were persian and aryan race. Medes and Parthian peoples were aryan race but were not persian. Medes established the first ancient iranian empire and Achaemenid Empire was the second ancient iranian empire and first persian empire. Parthian Empire was the third ancient iranian Empire. Parthian people were not persian but were aryan race. Sassanid empire was the forth ancient iranian empire and second Persian Empire. The ancient iranian empires were median empire, Achaemenid Empire, Parthian Empire, and sassanid empire.the ancient iranian dynastic was terminated by invasion of Arabs. Fahesh (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello airplanman. I want to discuss you for page persian Empire. In page persian Empire mentioned to Parthian Empire was two persian Empire whereas ancient persian were Achaemenid and sassanid empires. Parthian people were not persian but were aryan race and established the third ancient iranian Empire after medes and Achaemenid Empires.sassanid empire was the second Persian Empire and forth ancient iranian empire. Fahesh (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Fahesh, thanks for the note. I am assuming that you are talking about the page Persian people and the editing disputes surrounding it. Please keep in mind Wikipedia's verifiability and neutral point of view policies. I am not interested in this topic and am only involved in editing as far as trying to maintain an objective approach to presenting information related to Persian people. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 13:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello persian Empire page in Wikipedia don't have references.please remove block for edition. I want edit persian empire with references. THANKS Fahesh (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please propose here what you would change and what references you would add. Unfortunately, the page has seen a so many detrimental edits that I'm not willing to unlock it until a well-founded edit proposal is made. Airplaneman ✈ 22:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection of Hong Kong

You applied indefinite semi-protection to this article in 2010. I don't think it is really necessary now. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been 5 years, so unprotecting will be a good experiment. The protection log is long, and I still see editing conflicts between even registered users. Let's keep an eye out for actual vandalism and if that isn't rampant, all will be well. Airplaneman ✈ 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: I've protected the article again because it's experienced nothing but vandalism since I took off protection on September 11. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 07:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good idea. sst✈^discuss 08:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for your message. Some at WikiCommons have difficulty with my ownership / copyright of image files I have uploaded. All of a sudden I have been requested to verify 75 files! That means I must write and send 75 emails. Although the work I have uploaded is my own, to write 75 emails would take me more than a month. It has taken me years writing the articles & uploading image files. Then out of nowhere comes this request that seems more like a vendetta. For that reason, I give up. I will not be brought into a fight. Nevertheless, I am grateful to you for showing concern, & kindness at this dilemma. Chaos4tu (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that. Your decision is understandable. Wishing you strength, Airplaneman ✈ 04:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Gratitude

It was very nice to talk to you. There are very few users I have come across on Wikipedia who have fruitful and amicable conversation/discussion with other editors. You are one of them. I wish you lots of success and happiness. Arjann (talk)

Likewise, it was nice to talk to you, Arjann. I find copyright quite confusing, and it often takes some work to figure out what's going on. Here's to many more discussions and discoveries! Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 21:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Airplane Man. Please protect the Type 99 Article from Al Khazar who keeps vandalize the page

Please protect the page Type 99 tank from Al Khazar. I am afraid that once he returns, he will be vandalizing that page again. He keep removing other people's sourced materials and tried to push his agenda through that Type 99 is a variant of T-72. The source he used is a personal blog titled "Air Power Australia". Yet he tries to convince others that it is a reliable source regarding Chinese Army technology. Yes an "Airpower" source in his words are reliable for tanks?? There are many other sources that never state what he trying to sell. He also used many exaggerated words as well.

Never the less, I did not remove his content but moved it under the "development" section.

Please protect the page.

Thank you,

--2602:306:B8BF:C0:FDCD:4503:CE92:E0A1 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks like a content dispute. There is no way to protect a page from only a single person. Airplaneman ✈ 05:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Location map USA Hawaii

I said 200+, not 2,000+. --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: I assumed that the very large number of transclusions you mentioned in the protection request rationale (200+) indicated a high-risk template. I do agree that 200 is on the very small side of "very large number of pages". What motivated the template protection was: vandalism to templates is often performed from multiple auto confirmed accounts (found on the WP:HRT page). Airplaneman ✈ 21:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm also happy to just semi-protect Template:Location map USA Hawaii, Template:Location map USA Vermont, Template:Location map USA North Dakota, and Template:Location map USA South Dakota. I just deemed template-protection better if there was to be any protection at all. Airplaneman ✈ 21:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's see then. --George Ho (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho:I'm not sure what you mean. Airplaneman ✈ 01:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll rephrase: I'll back off this time, and we'll see how it goes. --George Ho (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool, sounds good. Airplaneman ✈ 05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(brought here from WP:RFPP) Given that it's extremely unlikely that a template would have been (before template protection) full protected, the protection policy does strongly push us towards semi protection ("should only be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection" WP:TEMP-P). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, cool – thanks for that. I'll change the protections and remember this for future actions. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 18:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Causal loop - "the wrong version"

Hi, thanks for admin-protecting the article causal loop. However, you protected The Wrong Version. There was a bold edit which added many uncited examples and that edit should be reverted under the proper bold-revert-discuss cycle. Users Electricburst1996, Beardo, Super48paul, Intyre, and Rdhs100 kept restoring the uncited, example-farm-style changes, and the version without these uncited claims is the "right version". Discussed here and here. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey BrightRoundCircle, it looks like this dispute has been slow-moving since July and picked up steam in the past day or two. I defer to WP:PREFER. Airplaneman ✈ 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ University of Chicago

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ University of Chicago on October 15! (drop-in any time, 3-7pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

America's Got Talent (season 3)

Thank you for protecting America's Got Talent (season 3). The vandalism should cease at least for now. EODos21 (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem – and thank you for watching out for vandalism! Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 22:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bio Recovery Corporation

You previously protected Bio Recovery Corporation. After the protection expired there's been more vandalism by IPs removing negative information on the company (e.g., here: [2]). Might need to protect it again. Also should point out that there was a sockpuppet investigation previously into accounts editing the page, perhaps these IPs are related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DanaTodd/Archive. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@FuriouslySerene: I've semi-protected it for a month. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 20:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Scott Walker

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: I say no; he suspended his campaign on September 21, and there hasn't been an undone edit for 4 weeks. Let's have the PC run its course and let the article be. Airplaneman ✈ 01:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

NASCAR standards proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2015_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series#Broadcast_networks_tables. Thanks. – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 01:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

MS Publisher

I think you forgot to remove the semi when I said about this pending changes thing. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's right; thanks for catching that. It's off now. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 15:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Airplaneman, could you please semi protect this page List of wars involving the People's Republic of China from continuous distributive editing

This is the page: List of wars involving the People's Republic of China, someone keeps removing sourced contents and adding basis and untrue information.

Thank you.

--2602:306:B8BF:C0:21E6:AA82:58CD:3DC6 (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

--2602:306:B8BF:C0:21E6:AA82:58CD:3DC6 (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Maddie Ziegler

Hello! You previously protected this page. Since the semi-protect expired, it has been getting a high amount of vandalism. Could you please restore the semi-protect due to persistent vandalism? Thanks for your help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ssilvers, thanks for the note. It seems that Mark Arsten already got to it – thanks, Mark. Happy new year and happy editing to you both. Airplaneman ✈ 17:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

HNY

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack! Wishing you a :) :) 2016 as well. Happy editing, Airplaneman ✈ 17:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45