• User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 1
• User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 2
• User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 3
• User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 4
• User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 5
• User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 6
• User talk:YSSYguy/Archive 7

But IndiGo has huge number of orders and only IndiGo 100 A320neo than any other airlines in the world The list is the evidence that IndiGo largest operator Of A320neo and A321neo Ktdk (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indigo is the largest operator of A320neos and A321neos because Only IndiGo has placed 640 A320neo and A321neo Ktdk (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But most of those aircraft don’t exist yet, therefore IndiGo doesn’t operate them. YSSYguy (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi YSSYguy, could you take a look at this this edit? It's unsourced, but is it even common in Australia, much less noteworthy? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @YSSYguy: You deleted all the photos I put into the DC-3 article on the grounds that they don't aid understanding of the subject. This is a first for me and, being new, I didn't know the procedures for objection to your action, so I added a question to the Teahouse: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Diverse_Photos_Added_to_DC-3_Article_on_17_May_Deleted_This_AM%3B_Other_Opinions%2C_Please%3F". Could you please have a look there to see if my points make sense for you to rescind your deletion? TIA. BrettA343 (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, @YSSYguy: I'm disappointed that you haven't responded either here or at the Teahouse, but I did get one reply at the Teahouse and have now responded to it (he had different arguments than you did). Please take a look (the link is above) and let me know what you think of my proposed resolution (basically, deleting 3 existing photos and reducing my count to 4). I'm unclear how you'll feel about that since you had no complaints about the total number of photos, but Fabrickator did. Please note that I do address your concern about aiding understanding of the subject. Have a great day! Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @YSSYguy: I've added another reply to Fabrickator at the Teahouse... Please join in at your convenience. TIA and cheers. BrettA343 (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a crap editor to one who has just made some worthwhile improvements to an article on my watchlist, I hate to point out that "None of these images have been treated or altered in any way" on your userpage could be better written "None of these images has . . ." I mention it only because you've clearly put a lot of effort into that page, unlike Doug butler (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. "fixes arising from edit by Mark83 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_E-3_Sentry&diff=next&oldid=996554708) saved at 19:43 on 27 December last year" This feels a bit "gotcha". I made a lot more improvements than these 2 mistakes. Am I happy I made mistakes? No. But I feel your time would be better spent improving Wikipedia than investing time doing an autopsy of every error to call fellow editors out in edit summaries. Mark83 (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) When another editor fixes your mistakes and actually lets you know that you made a mistake, it would be better to take it as an opportunity to learn, not repeat the mistakes and thank the editor, rather than complaining. It is probably worth keeping in mind that the aim of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not to assuage your ego. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. If you review the page history I made changes 23-27 December rectifying major issues which would have been compelling reasons to question the article's GA status. Calling out mistakes is constructive if it was an error using a template, or referencing, or image placement etc. etc. If I was being corrected on a fundamental misunderstanding of such issues (or the myriad of others we could all name) I'd welcome that feedback, publicly or privately and take it as an opportunity to learn. This was clearly a minor oversight and the fact that someone is spending time to trawl back through edit summaries to pinpoint such trivialities is not (in my opinion of course) a good use of time in the effort to build an encyclopedia. Mark83 (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't "trawl back through edit summaries to pinpoint such trivialities", it was necessary to go through the edit history in order to find out why there was a fragment of a sentence in the middle of a paragraph. I did not know what had been there before, so I could not tell whether there was something removed that should not have been, or there was half a sentence that should have been removed in its entirety. I only came across the article at all, because in the same edit you had typed "aicraft" instead of "aircraft" and I periodically hunt for the word "aircrafts" and for typographical errors that editors have made when they typed the word "aircraft" (I refer you to the first paragraph of the Edits section of my User page; plenty of us have done the latter - MilborneOne has done it because sometimes the 'r' key of his keyboard didn't work. GraemeLeggett has done it; Ahunt has done it. I have done it because sometimes when I type rapidly I get 'finger dyslexia' and type "aircrfat". I just happened to notice the sentence fragment while doing a quick scan of the text around the typo. I wanted to draw your attention to the typographical error and I thought there was a possibility that you had the article on your watchlist. I'd already spent a good ten minutes locating the edit that introduced the sentence fragment and copy-pasting the diff into the edit summary was simply a matter of me saving time instead of posting something to your Talk page. Well, here we are, turns out I didn't save time at all; I have cost all three of us time and for that, I apologise. The rest was down to an error of judgement on my part and, while I acknowledge such errors when I make them, I do not apologise for them. YSSYguy (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at International MXT-MV. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello YSSYguy! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capital Express Route 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/Capital Express Route 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.

Dfadden (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]