Archives (Index)

1

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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosbif73 You are a WikiGnome and so am I and your minor revisions every now and then have helped a lot and I hope you continue your excellent work on English Wikipedia. But my actual purpose for reaching out to you today is to extend an invitation to join the recently formed Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/William, Prince of Wales task force whose primary objective at present is to take William's article to FA status. You did some valuable work in November and have been always there to revise any of my not so accurate edits. Hence please join and collaborate. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi MSincccc, I don't intend to sign up for a task force, but that won't stop me contributing as and when I spot things that need tweaking. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosbif73 That's your wish and I respect it. But its nothing wrong to join. Its only an official hub for receiving peer comments. If you want to join, please do so most readily. Happy New Year in advance btw and hope you had a merry Christmas. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosbif73 I was not pestering you but since I receive no reply henceforth I assume you intend to stick to your original decision. Anyways you can always chime in and put your views at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/William, Prince of Wales task force. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosbif73 Would you mind lending me, Keivan and Векочел a helping hand in Queen Camilla's GA Review? Your comments and contribution will be appreciated. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MSincccc I'm not going to be on wiki much if at all for the next week, but I'll take a look if I can. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? Special:Diff/1192046114? RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because a totally unrealistic flight sim crash video is not exactly on topic with a view to improving the article. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I suppose thats true. Another name for it would be humor, which I don't think is a sin for a talk page. But, more importantly, you also reverted Special:Diff/1187547030 at the same time. RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, that was unintentional and I've just reinstated it. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi i understand that you have reverted a few crashes i added on the february section, i read that these incidents i added were run-of-the-mill accidents from you. The helicopter crash i added for the 11th is understandable but can i get more info on why the Beechcraft Bonzana one is removed? There were a few deaths and made big news around Florida. TyHaliburtn (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @TyHaliburtn. There are literally hundreds of general aviation accidents with fatalities every year in the US alone, and hundreds more around the world. They are often newsworthy, especially in local news, but Wikipedia is not a news site. We need to be asking ourselves whether it is encyclopedic to list a particular accident. If there is nothing special (from an aviation point of view) to distinguish it from the hundreds of other such accidents, then the answer is usually no.

For that Beechcraft crash in particular, an article had been created but there was a consensus to delete as non-notable, which is why I removed the accident from the page rather than just tagging it as of disputed importance. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]