User talk:Crum375

Archives

Lithograph credit: Thomas Goldsworthy Dutton, after Edward Duncan and George Pechell Mends; restored by Adam Cuerden

Flight 1907 and Cessna 182 - deletion vs flagging

Again responding: If "deletion" and "relocation" were the same then there would be no need for two words. They are NOT the same. Deletion removes the material from the current version of the encyclopedia. When Encyclopaedia Britannia undergoes a revision and material is removed by its editors then no one says it is not deleted but just relocated in the old version. When you search for something in Wikipedia (as an ordinary user would) then the archive is not searched. When WP is forked or copied or published in book form the archive will not be present. When I throw my pencil in the trash it is not discarded, merely relocated. And when you search EB 1986 the index does not mention the material deleted in 1926. Deleted material is almost always lost, effectively. Relocated material is not. You play with words in this argument. Maybe not only here. Paul Beardsell 22:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, illustrating my point marvellously, my previous arguments disappear never to be viewed again. (Viewing is possible, just very unlikely.) Paul Beardsell 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, responding from comment left on my home page: Stop patronising me. I think I know as well as anyone how wikipedia works. Just address the major argument or do not bother. Of course EB takes a year to revise but that wasn't germaine to the point I was making. What I think you must concede is this principle: Do NOT delete without excellent(!) cause so as to avoid information loss, when deleting consider if relocation (a DIFFERENT concept) would not be possible. Paul Beardsell 22:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Well I disagree. Some editors are better than others. The contrary view is PC at best but wrong. And some deletions are inappropriate. A bad deletion is bad for WP. Deletion when relocation would be more appropriate is a case in point. Obviously. And it does not matter how often a false proposition is repeated: it does not make it true. Well, OK, it should not make it true. So, countering one now oft repeated false proposition: A deletion is not just a relocation and it does not have the effect of a relocation. It makes the deleted material difficult to find and will never be found by the ordinary user of Wikipedia. Mostly, deleted material even if good is lost forever! Deletion is bad, relocation is better. Paul Beardsell 23:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my most recent contribution to this discussion on the article's Talk page [1]. I found the relevant WP guideline following precisely a link you provided early on. It does seem my instinctual reaction to your deletion is, in fact, official policy. I ask therefore that you do not act in quite the way you did at Cessna 182 in the future. Paul Beardsell 19:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP guidelines say what they say, not what we each individually may want them to say. To be so ready to quote principles and rules and general the-way-wikipedia-works advice to me is fine, assuming good faith! When, however, I point out a guideline to you which contradicts what you have been saying and doing and you seem not to have learnt anything - as your most recent comment on my user page demonstrates -- and you finish by saying "AGF" then it is imperative that I point out that WP:AGF does not say that good faith must be assumed forever against the evidence. The AGF guidelines do not say what I think you want them to say. If you will not follow the guidelines when they are pointed out to you then any obligation to AGF just fades away. Also your repeated adminishment to me to AGF is specifically dealt with in the guidelines. Paul Beardsell 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AGF:

This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.

Paul Beardsell 22:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

Just thought I'd once again thank you for your great work on the Flight 1907 article. User:Antiuser/sig

Discussing changes

Hi there! Just a brief note - people are generally allowed to (in their opinion) improve things without having to discuss anything. If we don't want something changed, we protect it to prevent that. If you disagree with a change, please tell the other party what you don't like about it. Yours, >Radiant< 11:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cessna 182 - what next?

Well, how do we go forward from here? I could re-instate the text you deleted, allowing you to move it to the article's Talk page, as per WP guidelines? Paul Beardsell 22:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will complete the work you started if necessary but I was hoping to give you an opportunity to show you understand what the guidelines say. Paul Beardsell 22:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 411

Come around when you like and I will gladly take another look at the article. Lincher 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure to read. If you find more material to add on this article, like response, testemonies, costs or other stuff you can always add it in order to complete the subject. I look forward to more of your articles in GAC. Lincher 03:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My idea on reviewing is to bring articles to a better level so I can for the time being review it in accordance with the GA criteria but can't put the tag on it for the GA until it is nominated. (I can't review them RIGHT now but will try in the near future). Feel free to also peruse my contributions and leave comments on how I do my work (my english isn't too good on articles but in conversations I'm pretty good). Lincher 04:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such comments following the review would be posted on your talk page in order to prevent creating a conflict of interest and in order for you to be able to get feedback. Also, reviewing in general is viewed in a good way for people like to get credit for what they have done and with WP:PR dying, the least I can do IS to review others work. (I try to stay objective, is it possible anyway ;) Lincher 12:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Air Lines Flight 212

The citation was already present and cited in the appropriate section. I have placed another reference to it immediately after the link. Perhaps next time you don't see where the information is coming from, it may be appropriate to use the fact template or ask the editor about it. Erechtheus 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied with that? Erechtheus 18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as to why you're so hostile to this link that is now sourced by three references when there is a section below this one without a single citation. Is this a WP:OWN issue? I'll add another citation momentarily. Erechtheus 19:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have ridden the attraction in question on several occasions (as early as the late 70s). It rotates. I have offered the readily available online sources that I believe can pass WP:RS in the order of authority, but I'll check for any others. There are several non-qualifying sources like website forums I can point you to, but they really can't be cited. Erechtheus 23:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this meets WP:RS, but this link clearly mentions rotation. Erechtheus 23:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LANSA Flight 508 review

In There was evidence the crew decided to continue the flight despite the hazardous weather ahead, apparently due to pressures related to meeting the holiday schedule., where did the pressure come from, who was directing the operations.
Background isn't an appropriate name for such a section, it should be changed to reflect the fact that the paragraph talks about the whole flight & the crash. This section should be well expanded with the creation of subsections.
The section Accident investigation should elaborate more on the investigations as it is overwhelmed with citations which deter the quality of the prose of that section.
Expansion on the mother's death, and expansion on her trekking in the wilderness would greatly improve the section Koepcke's survival. Giving dates to ascertain where she was at every moments.
Is it possible to have transcripts of the conversations of the pilot with the bases around. Is there any black box information available?

Lincher 17:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by that pressure thing was not to give a citation but to expand that part in order to let people know where did the pressure came from. Just by looking at the citation you placed on my talk page, you can easily add more to that part. Lincher 17:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree then that it isn't reliable material ... I may try to help you with finding stuff if you don't get around to finding a good source. Good luck, and if its not possible then forget it (or add it and say the source isn't reliable). Lincher 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the article mention just briefly the '99 movie Wings of Hope which is about Koepcke's survival. Lincher 19:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy you decided bring the article around GAC. I don't know if I will be reviewing it but good luck and I'm also good to see what you did to the article. Lincher 21:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chart image for the Legacy

I forgot they don't like off-site referrals. I put it up on my own site now. ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into the copyright status of the chart and if it's not free I'll look for a free alternative. ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've enlarged the image as much as I could without losing quality - you can still read the flightplan this way. I'm not going to upload it to wikipedia because I'm not sure of the copyright status of the fax, but you can see it here. Congrats for the barnstar! ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can get to the O Globo page here [2]. Also, the pilot states on [3] that "Embraer filed the flight plan for FL370 until Manaus". ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posted the image on the airliners.net forum - I think it's from a Jeppesen chart but I can't find one for that area... ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember where I learned about the coding... I'll try to look it up. ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft - tense reversion

I appreciate your support. I think there should be a defined style for the article. Perhaps there should be a vote on the talk page. – Zntrip 00:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll let you start it, I’m not very experienced with these sort of things. – Zntrip 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ll know to check the talk page for the article because it’ll be on my watch list. – Zntrip 00:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Not to try to deconvince your oppose stance, which is probably unnecessary at this point, but I really think you're taking it a little too seriously. All I did was mock the stupidest anti-semitic stereotype in response to some serious anti-zionist agitation from an anti-wiki user, who alleged that Zionists control Wikipedia. (whatever!) I did it to escalate the stupidity. No zionists actually drink palestinian blood. I am not a zionist. Addressee was not offended. Most people agree that it wasn't so bad, and all agree it wasn't a WP:NPA violation. Now, I agree that it was in bad taste, and probably offensive (tho not to addressee). That's the long and short of it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a rhetorical device in bad taste, not incivility of any kind. But even if I had been incivil here and there, does that really add up to me not "be[ing] allowed to still be here and edit freely"? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirding

Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect talk page

I have copied your comments from Talk talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format to Talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft, as the former is an incorrect talk page, which I will nominate for deletion shortly. — Tivedshambo (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page you're looking for is talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format. Talk talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format has appeared in mainspace, and now has a talk page of it's own. Yes, it's confusing, but I can move your comments and Zntrip's to the correct page if you like. — Tivedshambo (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going off-net for a few hours now, but I'm sure some friendly admin can try to unravel this ;-) — Tivedshambo (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now your pages are at Wikipedia:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format and Wikipedia talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format. Under control now? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PETA killing puppies

Sorry to bother you but your recent edit to PETA said that the source does not say they kill most animals. Well the article itself does, down in the community animal project section. Any thoughts? Cheers. L0b0t 02:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here ya go, first line of policy on euthanasia section-

"Policy on euthanasia

PETA does not adhere to a no-kill policy and euthanizes the majority of animals that come into its care."

Just thought there should be some agreement between paragraphs. Cheers. L0b0t 03:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PETA on euthanasia

For the record, your last_edit introduced an inaccuracy. The previous phrasing was accurate. Not counting animals found dead, there are 3 types of animals PETA takes in: 1)animals GIVEN to them for which they find a home 2)animals GIVEN to them which they end up euthanizing and 3)animals NOT GIVEN to them, which they take in for sterilization purposes, and are 'reclaimed by owner. Thus, it is correct to say either: they euthanize most animals given to them or they euthanize all animals either not adopted or not reclaimed by owner. Saying they euthanize most animals not adopted or not reclaimed by owner would imply they keep on the premises a number of live animals that never get adopted or reclaimed by the owner which according to the reports themselves, isn't true. This isn't a matter of POV, it's a simple matter of logic.--Ramdrake 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, if you subtract animals reclaimed by owners and animals adopted out, ALL the remaining anmals were euthanized. I'm sorry to insist, but your wording is still not correct.--Ramdrake 00:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try again to explain myself. Say, let's take the 2005 report. Please take a look at the columns "Other" and "Reclaimed by Owner". The numbers are nearly identical in each category (Cats, Dogs, Other Companion Animals). It's normal to assume that since these "others" were not "Surrendered by Owner" (they are in the column "other") they were also "Reclaimed by Owner" (by and large) these animals were not meant to stay at PETA's facilities for long. What is interesting in the upper panel ("Received")the number "surrendered by owner" (and the strays), 2107 and 31. Of these numbers, ("Disposition", lower panel) 146 were adopted (6.8%), 69 (3.2%)transferred to another within-state facility and 1946 (91%) were euthanized. 2 (0.1%) died in facility and 2(0.1%) were still on the premises at year-end. What I think is the interesting point is that far more animals were euthanized than were adopted (10-15:1 ratio, depending on whether you count the transferred animals). The current wording totally loses this important distinction. By comparison, the Peninsula SPCA also in Virginia, for the same year [4] adopted out 3557 animals for 6127 animals euthanized (a 2:1) ratio. The Northern Virginia Animal League [5] adopted out 386 animals for 12 animals euthanized (1:30 ratio). So, the legitimate questons is why does PETA have a 10:1 euthanasia/adoption ration when others have a 1:30 ratio? This important question is completely obliterated from the article, AFAICT.--Ramdrake 12:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reference you were asking for[6],and while it doesn't compare PETA with other organizations, it makes clear that PETA euthanizes 80-90% of the animals given to it, and that this trend has been increasing over the years. I have no problem putting in a caveat that this comes from a site critical of PETA, but in my opinion, the info needs to be made very clear in the article.--Ramdrake 12:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it's that type of conversation and consensus building that makes the two of you (Ramdrake, and Crum375) such a pleasure to work with. Cheers. L0b0t 12:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just refreshing to see some discourse and conversation. All too often when dealing with editors on touchy subjects I feel I may as well be talking to my cats. Though in the interest of full disclosure, I am a very stubborn lad myself. You have provided an example we can all try to emulate. Cheers L0b0t 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crum, here's my take on it: the numbers they present are verifiable (through the VDACS site), and the assumption they make (which is the same I make) is supported by the scans of the original forms filled out by PETA which they link to (one of the first links I supplied when we started this discussion). As far as this site being non-neutral, hey as far as I know, PETA is not even being neutral about itself (!). What is important to me is that the numbers are verifiable through other sources, and and the explanation for the "Others" column can be found in their link. The PETA Kills Animals is one of the sites produced by the Center for Consumer Freedom, one of the main adversaries of PETA. I believe we should care much more about whether the information is factual and correct (which we can verify) than where it can be found. Otherwise, we would have to trash half the references that criticize PETA, and I don't think political correctness is worth that much, if the information is verifiable by other means. Please let me know what you think.--Ramdrake 14:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]