Talk:Metrojet Flight 9268
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Martinevans123 in topic Recent edits to lead
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metrojet Flight 9268 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | A news item involving Metrojet Flight 9268 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Metrojet Flight 9268, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 31, 2017, October 31, 2021, and October 31, 2023. |
Crash ‘Not Terrorism,’ Egypt Says (in 2020)???
editThis just made my radar from the The Moscow Times: Deadly Russian Plane Crash ‘Not Terrorism,’ Egypt Says:
A Russian passenger plane crash in Egypt was not an act of terrorism and the identities of its victims are unknown, an Egyptian appeals court ruled recently, according to the Kommersant business daily.
I'm befuddled...
Jeffrey Walton (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, all I can do is point to the quote from that article:
Zagaynov said they plan to appeal the rulings with Egypt’s supreme court.
So more to come. - Ahunt (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- IP 109.175.214.233 has just removed the paragraph here with the edit summary "Checked a source and realized the information was incorrect". Is this correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I reverted the removal. We need to see evidence this is wrong and probably leave it in with a refutation and the new ref. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
MetroJet v. Egypt and Prince Group v. Egypt
editWhile searching for additional/ alternative source(s) for the thread immediately above, I came across this blog. Nothing to do with "acts of terrorism" but related to "the investor-State arbitration". Not sure if it will be reflected in any wider press reporting; may not be notable or sifficiently sourceable, although Jones Day themselves are highly notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Recent edits to lead
editIam and the last airline I am that you and Solaire the knight, as this article is currently under Active Community Sanctions, could either or both of you possible explain the reasons for recent material you have added/ restored? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- What problem has arisen? Iam and the last airline I am that you (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Another user expanded the description in the template and added a source that you simply deleted with the one word "unexplained", which I found quite strange. So I would rather ask why did you do that? Solaire the knight (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- I assumed "unexplained" was both adequate and self-explanatory as there was no edit summary. Iam and the last airline I am that you, could you please explain your change? The infobox seems to have been stable for quite some and I thought the original description was perfectly adequate. Is there really a need to have a more detailed explanation? Is there really a need to have a source in the infobox? Surely all the detail and supporting sources should be in the text main body. If that source is much better than the existing ones, I'd have no objection to adding it in or replacing an existing one in the text. Is it much better? Changes to this article attract greater scrutiny, as it is under Active Community Sanctions. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that the user needs to be given additional explanations about adding a source and expanding the text a bit. At least, I haven't noticed that their edits were controversial or non-obvious. But if other users come to the conclusion that this should be removed, I won't be against it. Especially since, as you mentioned above, I won't be able to undo any edits again even if I wanted to. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- I await an explanation from the original editor. We could all just wait 24 hours and repeat the process. But in the mean time, I'd welcome the input here, or adjustments to the article, from any other editors Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm a bit surprised that such bold edits are being made by an editor who has been registered here for less than 24 hours. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- I just expanded the photo and the summary because I think the summary was a bit too brief and the photo, it's true that the previous photo had a sky background and this one does too, but I think this is better and the quality is better and couldn't everyone here do the editing? It doesn't matter, right? Iam and the last airline I am that you (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Do you know about edit summaries? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes Iam and the last airline I am that you (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's good. Please try and use them for all you edits going forward. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes Iam and the last airline I am that you (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Do you know about edit summaries? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- I just expanded the photo and the summary because I think the summary was a bit too brief and the photo, it's true that the previous photo had a sky background and this one does too, but I think this is better and the quality is better and couldn't everyone here do the editing? It doesn't matter, right? Iam and the last airline I am that you (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that the user needs to be given additional explanations about adding a source and expanding the text a bit. At least, I haven't noticed that their edits were controversial or non-obvious. But if other users come to the conclusion that this should be removed, I won't be against it. Especially since, as you mentioned above, I won't be able to undo any edits again even if I wanted to. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- I assumed "unexplained" was both adequate and self-explanatory as there was no edit summary. Iam and the last airline I am that you, could you please explain your change? The infobox seems to have been stable for quite some and I thought the original description was perfectly adequate. Is there really a need to have a more detailed explanation? Is there really a need to have a source in the infobox? Surely all the detail and supporting sources should be in the text main body. If that source is much better than the existing ones, I'd have no objection to adding it in or replacing an existing one in the text. Is it much better? Changes to this article attract greater scrutiny, as it is under Active Community Sanctions. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)