Archives (Index)

2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/October 2022/November 2023/January 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/October

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noted the edit warring over the Westerling article and war crime accusations. I'm not here to complain about it but just to suggest that the whole section should probably be rewritten using secondary sources and not his own statements. I mentioned that on the talk page a while back but never got around to doing anything about it. I'm happy to take a look this weekend if you like. Dan Carkner (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dan Carkner: I don't think it was edit warring. Since IP editor revert almost all of my edit for the last 3 days, Westerling page is just happened to be one of articles that I edit during that time. IMO, it was just behavioural issue that led to plain vandalism. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. So not necessarily to do with that topic. OK either way I'll put it next on my list to review the article. It needs some work. Dan Carkner (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes... at any case, your review will be appreciated. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Ckfasdf if you could use this link https://www.flightglobal.com/download?ac=98881 for any inventory updates, it will allow the reader to download the actual PDF - Thanks FOX 52 ^talk! 16:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FOX 52: OK. But, please also do not edit from old version of the article. The encyclopedia is damaged when positive contributions that should be preserved are caught up and lost in edit using old version of the article. Ckfasdf (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and good day. Most of the deletions you made from that section (on 12/7/2023 at 12:46) pretty much dont meet WP:PLANECRASH criteria, however some should be put back on the list because they do. Heres the list.

• 5/30/1972: Flight 9570: DC-9 crashes due to wake turbulence from a DC-10, 4 killed.
• 11/27/1973:DC-9 crashed short of runway because of possible windshear in torrential rains, 42 injured, plane caught fire and was destroyed.
• 7/8/1987: L-1011 near collision with Continental 747, leading to TCAS being developed.
• 10/14/1989:Boeing 727 caught fire on ground, 19 injuries, 3 minor, plane written off.
• 9/11/2001: Near collision with United 93, changed security protocols after.
• 3/15/2015: MD-88, Flight 1086 crash lands at LaGuardia Airport, over 100 injuries, aircraft written off.
• 6/17/2025: Boeing 747 encounters turbulence over China, plane written off.
• 6/23/2023: Ground fatality when ground worker was sucked into engine taxiing to gate.

Just my opinion, these should be put back, reviewing the other reverts, no, was a little excessive. Hope we come to a consensus. Thank you for your time and have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Theairportman33531 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theairportman33531: I have reviewed the list above, and I agree to restore majority of them as they met WP:PLANECRASH criteria. there are 3 accidents that I disagree to restore, which are as follows:

• 7/8/1987: L-1011 near collision with Continental 747, leading to TCAS being developed. -> I didn't find this incident leads to development of TCAS
• 9/11/2001: Near collision with United 93, changed security protocols after. -> security protocols was changed due to United Airlines Flight 93 not Delta flight
• 6/17/2025: Boeing 747 encounters turbulence over China, plane written off. -> source states that this aircraft was written off for its age.

I hope you can agree with my rationale. THx. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do. Completely satified with list now. Glad we came to a consensus. Thank you for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Ckfasdf,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently noticed that my edits on the Algerian Air Force page were reverted, with the reason cited as being "too detailed." I appreciate your dedication to maintaining the quality of Wikipedia articles and ensuring that information is presented in a clear and concise manner.

I would like to better understand the specific concerns that led to the reversion of my edit. My intention was to contribute valuable information to enhance the content of the article. If the level of detail provided is considered excessive, I am more than willing to work collaboratively to find a suitable compromise that aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Could you please provide more specific feedback on the aspects of my edit that were deemed too detailed? This will help me make necessary adjustments and ensure that future contributions align with the community's expectations.

I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I believe that open communication is key to achieving a consensus on content modifications. Your insights and guidance will be invaluable in refining my contributions and maintaining the high standards of the Algerian Air Force article.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your feedback and the opportunity to collaborate constructively.

Best regards,

MoussaCB

موسى (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MoussaCB: Thank you for reaching out for me. Regarding your edit on Algerian Air Force page, my main concern as I mentioned in edit summery it's just too many detailed information put into the inventory table and WP:WHENTABLE is quite explicitly about this as it says Avoid cramming too much detailed information into individual table entries. However, your questions is maybe "How much details considered as too much detail?". On that case, you can look up other aircraft inventory table on other air forces articles as reference, but typically one row of entry only contain one simple sentence, including on "Notes" column.

Let's look up example of your edit on inventory table as shown below

Below is my concerns for the example above:

1. Notes column contains 3 type information: a) history of that aircraft, b) where this aircraft is stationed, c) registration number of that aircraft
2. Usually history of certain aircraft is included as Prose in the body of the article, most of time in "History section"
3. Information on where this aircraft is stationed can be include in "Airbase" section, so it can list not only name of airbase but which unit and aircraft stationed there.
4. Registration number and painting pattern are usually considered as minor thing, I dont think I can remember any air forces articles which includes those information.
5. You also removed "variant" column, which you can find in any aircraft inventory table. please note that column is helpful to identify which variant used by the air forces.
6. You modify number of aircraft operated to be "30" but the source (WAF 2024) explicitly states it's "39 active" and "5 ordered"
7. Continuing from the above point, you removed "5 on order" on "Notes" column while that statement is sourced.
8. You also decide put "Medium-Weight Multirole FIghter-Jet" in "Type" column, whereas we usually just put it as "Multirole" as it's more concise.
9. Lastly, you are using internet forum as source for your claim.

I intend to condense the level of detail in one to two sentences and eliminate the airbase information, as per your preference.

@MoussaCB: I don't know how you are going to work it out, but usually "Notes" column only to be used for number aircraft on order or other type of aircraft (i.e. trainer), please look up other air forces articles for reference.

@Ckfasdf why not be the refference?

@MoussaCB: Again... principle of least astonishment (consistency or uniformity between air force articles). Ckfasdf (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I initially aimed to retain the registration for differentiation among plane variants, I am willing to omit them upon your request.

@MoussaCB:it's good that we have an agreement.

Regarding the presentation of variants, I believe maintaining a separate listing, as I have done, is more effective, and I am inclined to adhere to this approach.

@MoussaCB: As I mentioned above, all aircraft inventory table on air force articles are using format that have variants, I don't really see why we should have different format for this one, and this is aligned with principle of least astonishment (consistency or uniformity between air force articles).

@Ckfasdf because the difference between variants is often huge,for example lets take the MIG29UB and the MIG29M,the MIG29M have a 2 times smaller RCS (5M2 VS 2.5M2),The Mig29M has a Radar and the MIg29UB does not,The Mig29M is a single seater and the MIg29UB is a 1 seater,there is a reason why the MIG29M is designated MIG35S in the russian air force,and there is many other differences that i did not mention between those.

@MoussaCB: Eventhough, they do have difference, they are still variants of MIG-29, exception can be made only if a) A production variant evolved from the same basic design has been given a different name, b) A production variant has a different role and is so distinct as to be virtually a different type. or c) A production variant incorporates a major airframe redesign such as swept wings. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to WAF 2024, 39 MIG-29s and 1 MIG-29 (for training) were utilized by the Algerian Air Force, with 5 on order. I specified 30 MIG-29 9.12S, 1 UB (for training), 4 M2, and 5 M and 5 M2 additional units on order, totaling 40 with 5 on order, and I fail to discern an issue with this arrangement.

@MoussaCB: Even though, we all know that Algeria operate MIG-29S/UB/M2.. The main issue is simply I can't find source that state 30 MIG-29S, 1 UB, 4 M2 and 5 M. Please also note that WAF also list it under "MIG-29". So, unless we have source that explicitly mentions number of each variants, it'll be better to keep it under "MIG-29".

@Ckfasdf apart from Forcesdz which i saw you really dont like, Military Africa,Defense info,Shepard Media,Scramble,defense web,aerotime,alert5,TASS,defenseaero,time aerospace,Russia Beyond,Defense mirror,Algerie360,Global defense corp and many many more all cite that algeria ordered 14 MIG29M2/MIG29M just like WAF said (they didnt specify M/M2 but still said 14),Forcesdz admin team is the only one saying that ther is 4m2 and 10 m2 in the order so why shouldnt we belive them? they have always been accurate,moreover for the UB,avionmilitaire website say that 2 are used,and menadefense say that they are used for training,and military africa said that a 2 seat MIG29 fighter crashed in algeria in 2022,and WAF 2021 say that algeria operated 32 MIG29 aircraft (and that the M/m2 werent delivered) with all this info i think that avionmilitaire website forgot to actualise the website after the crash (in WAF 2022 Say that 2 new MIG29 were delivered so if we do 33-2 we get 31 and thats 1 number below the waf 2021 so we can see that algeria has 1 MIG29UB for now,and all the rest can ONLY be 9.12S as algeria has no other MIG29 variant. موسى (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MoussaCB: the only issue with sourced that you mentioned, none of them explicitly says that currently (at 17 January 2024), Algerian air force has 30 MIG-29S, 1 UB, 4 M2 and 5 M. If we compile those data then it may be considered as WP:SYNTH and it's not acceptable in Wikipedia. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you prefer "multirole" instead of "Medium-Weight Multirole Fighter-Jet," I am open to your suggestion.

@MoussaCB: again, all aircraft inventory table on air force articles are using this terms, so my arguments is same as above.

Additionally, Forcesdz's website contains a forum section, albeit not a comprehensive one. I am willing to explore alternative sources that align with Forcesdz to ensure consensus. May we proceed to harmonize our proposals? موسى (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MoussaCB: Please note that you don't need my permission to explore/use other sources that comply with acceptable reliable source in Wikipedia, I was simply mentioning the policy in Wikipedia whereas internet forum is not acceptable for source. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]