User talk:Zaptain United

This is Zaptain United's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aeroflot Flight 9981 (March 31)

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 reviewer's talk page 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]

A belated welcome!

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:

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]

Aeroflot Flight 9981 moved to draftspace

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]

China Eastern Airlines Flight 586 moved to draftspace

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]

File:Crash site of Colgan Air Flight 3407, Feb 2009.jpg and WP:NFCC1

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]

MOS:GEOLINK problem

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]

Captions

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]

July 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2025 Dhaka fighter jet crash. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. PS: Do not add a .webm file in the image parameter. Goku from bd (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Aloha Airlines Flight 243. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Aloha Airlines Flight 243, you may be blocked from editing. As per both of my edit summaries, please review WP:SD40. Short descriptions should not exceed 40 characters. DonIago (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:Boeing 727-264 XA-MEM, número de serie 22414 y línea 1748.jpg

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:

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.
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]

Orphaned non-free image File:N827AX image.jpg

⚠

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]

Aviation does not mean the same thing as aircraft.

Just saying. Perhaps editing Wikipedia in your native language would be a better idea for you. Maungapohatu (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then what should the short description be? I'm trying to have a standard short description. I initially tried "aircraft", but I got reverted. I know that aviation and aircraft don't mean the same thing smarty pants. I check and a lot more short descriptions of accidents and incidents are using aviation bfore I started changing them. Zaptain United (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop changing "aviation" to "aircraft" in the short description over nothing. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "aviation" and there's absolutely no need to change the word. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on editing

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:

Also worth taking a moment to review the following essays:

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

August 2025

Your recent editing history at American Airlines Flight 11 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at ValuJet Flight 592, you may be blocked from editing. The full name would indeed be ValuJet Airlines Flight 592. DonIago (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you be blaming the previous editor who changed the article name in 2021. I was merely adjusting the article to fit the name. I actully prefer using ValuJet Airlines Flight 592. I will change the article name. Zaptain United (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are responsible for your own edits, and blaming an editor from four years earlier is nonsensical. Firstly, why assume their edits were an improvement? Secondly, if you see an inconsistency and you're unsure how to proceed, why not ask at the Talk page before making a possibly problematic edit? DonIago (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 342 for deletion

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, you went too far.

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]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Crash of a McDonnell Douglas MD-11F in Subic Bay.jpg

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wreckage of a McDonnell Douglas MD-11F in Subic Bay.jpg

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:HZ-AIH wreckage.jpg

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:RA-85816 Wreckage.jpg

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]

Replaceable non-free use File:Albertina Transair Sweden.jpg

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:

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.
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]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Air France Flight 296Q Wreckage.jpg

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]

Replaceable non-free use File:CCCP-42369 image.jpeg

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:

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.
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]

Concern regarding Draft:China Eastern Airlines Flight 586

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]

Deleted redirects

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]

Replaceable non-free use File:Wreckage of Manx2 Flight 7100.jpg

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:

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.
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]

Speedy deletion of 2024 Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport runway collision

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]

planespotters

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]

Dealing with suspected sockpuppets

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]

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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]

Edit waR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh and read wp:minor. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will do this instead. If I find an edit, I don't like, I will revert back to the original. If the other editor reverts my edit revert, then I will seek consensus. Sounds good? Zaptain United (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

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]

Nomination of USAir Flight 499 for deletion

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]

Disruptive editing

Please stop with your disruptive editing. You have continually been involved in disruptive image changes in articles to your preferred versions without consensus, sometimes even against consensus. Additionally you are edit warring on some items throughout the project and you really need to read WP:SDESC to find out what short descriptions actually are for (they're badly names, they're not actually short descriptions.) You need to obtain consensus, not continually fight for your preferred versions and your view of what is a better picture. Work with the other editors, not against them, and stop changing images without consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 14:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert this edit. As has already been mentioned several times, short descriptions shouldn't be repeating the title and aren't there as summaries. We already know it's a collision from the article title and the article title is always shown when the short description is visible. Repeating the title details is worse than not having a short description. The changes you keep making are not improving them, they're making them worse, as has been explained by a couple of other editors. It seems you're not listening to what people are saying to you. This one is a good step in the right direction as you're partially at least removing the duplication. Technically with that one it's possible that the SD should be none. Canterbury Tail talk 23:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]