JCSigma2000

Welcome!

Hello, JCSigma2000!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

WikiLinks

Hi, I noticed that you recently added some wikilinks to the page Air India Flight 171. I just wanted to let you know that this was probably unnecessary. I do agree with you that some people may not know what a dreamliner or a ram air turbine is, and it would be useful to link those articles. However, if you look, you'll find that in both cases there was a previous mention of that term in a previous paragraph which was already linked. Things should usually only be linked once. Per MOS:LINKONCE, a term should not be linked more than once per major section, and some people are even of the opinion that terms should only be linked once in the entire article. Hope this helps! SI09 (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Alr thx JCSigma2000 (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

Hello, I'm Danners430. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Piccadilly line, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks JCSigma2000 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Air India Flight 171

I have noticed that many of your edits are being reverted, or otherwise contested, by multiple editors (including myself). I absolutely believe your changes are being made in good faith, but with apologies they are beginning to be disruptive. I might suggest limiting your edits to adding new information to the article as it becomes available, as your most problematic edits are small tweaks intended to improve something, but which unfortunately often do the opposite. Xan747 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Alr thx JCSigma2000 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Please remember Xan747’s advice above before making further edits to Air India Flight 171. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your most recent edit per consensus at Talk:Air_India_Flight_171#Lede_section that the lede section is not to be changed except for correcting errors, or to add newly available information. Your edit met neither of those criteria. Additionally, per the topic of this thread, your edit did not improve the article: the sentence was perfectly clear as written, and actually less awkward than your revision. Xan747 (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Your comment in this edit continues to miss the point that the lede section is frozen by consensus at Talk:Air_India_Flight_171#Lede_section. You are welcome to propose changes to the lede on the article talk page. What you are doing instead is disruptive. Please stop. Xan747 (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for going to the talk page about your previous edit.

However, this edit, while technically correct, just doesn't sound right. "DNA collection and testing" refers to the overall *process* and sounds more natural than pluralizing them as you did: "the DNA collections and testings". Also, the "the" is just redundant: it just doesn't aid in understanding, and don't sound natural ... to me at least.

That all said, the previous version (which I was the last one to edit) was also not very good. I was thinking something along the lines of The extreme heat of the post-crash fires, estimated at 1,500 °C (2,700 °F), complicated efforts to identify the victims. However, by 28 June, the remains of all 260 people who died had been identified, mostly by DNA analysis.

I like this better because it doesn't try to cram too much into a single sentence. And I think it's more accurate: the fires made identification via any means more difficult. Xan747 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The new sentence looks good, but I feel the old one was just fine as well. Frankly, the latest edit is just grammatically wrong. JCSigma2000, the article is mature and these edits appear to be nothing more than edits for editing sake. They fix no problems and they add no new information. Might I suggest you focus your energy on editing recently created articles? They are the ones in most need of editing and fine-tuning. Celjski Grad (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Alr sure I have added ur idea with just a little bit of change of words. Go look for yourself to see if you like it. Thx @Xan747

JCSigma2000 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I do like that better. I would have made a couple of different choices, but those are just matters of style. I did go in after you to add back the link to DNA profiling and that is it. Agree with Celjski Grad that this is a mature article that we should really only be editing to fix errors, or add newly revealed information. There are a literal tonne of other articles on this topic that need real additions and other improvements. Xan747 (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Love the reaction @Xan747 JCSigma2000 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The text you modified in this edit was perfectly correct and less wordy than your revision. It did not improve the article. This revision introduced a grammatical error: causing all lost of thrust. The proper construction would be causing a loss of all thrust. This made the article worse. Please stop. Xan747 (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit introduced trivia to the lede, and goes against consensus to not change the lede except to fix factual errors or information recently come to light, and I have restored to the consensus version in this edit. Open a talk page discussion if you feel strongly that the added content belongs in the lede. Xan747 (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Xan747sorry, it was just someone added the northwest content and I tried regroup them instead to make it better. JCSigma2000 (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, and no worries. Xan747 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Not only did this edit make the text more wordy, it introduced grammatical errors. Xan747 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Xan747 I am sorry then, I just though the FADEC was important and just wondering, where was the grammar error? JCSigma2000 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The grammar error is slight: This results in the loss of thrust. The 'the' doesn't belong there. An 'a' would be ok, but simply 'loss of thrust' is perfectly acceptable. We discuss the FADEC's role in more detail in the Preliminary report section; it's just not necessary to mention it twice. Xan747 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright thx JCSigma2000 (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed it already said 'causing a loss of thrust', which is correct, and actually does sound better than 'causing loss of thrust'. English is stupid. Xan747 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: the report only said that the data from the damaged recorder could not be identified by conventional means, not that they didn't recover data from it. They probably weren't able to at the time, but it was not clearly stated so. I'm going to let it stand. That said, you marked it as a "minor" edit. It was not. A minor edit does not mean a small edit, it means one that could never possibly be disputed--like correcting spelling, or adding a missing punctuation mark. Typically anything which changes the meaning of the text is a regular edit, not minor. Xan747 (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Xan747 Alright sorry about the misconception about the minor edit part.

Here is what I actually found about the flight recorder part:

‘And yet, the forward recorder, pulled from a crushed and fire-damaged nose, survived with cockpit recordings intact. On the other hand, the (tail) aft-flight data recorder, or enhanced airborne flight recorder (EAFR), located in the undamaged tail, was found charred, with data undownloadable.’ This is from a new source.

‘The aft EAFR was substantially damaged and could not be downloaded through conventional means. The CPM was opened to inspect the memory card. The damage was extensive.’ ‘The download from the FWD EAFR was attempted at the AAIB Lab on 24th June 2025. The CPM was retrieved from the EAFR and found to be in good condition. The CPM was mounted on the Golden Chassis and the raw data was downloaded from the EAFR.’ All this is from the preliminary report.

I definitely agree with you that the preliminary report did not clarify that no data could be downloaded. But the point is, the front recorder was in a very condition. While the aft one was severely damaged outside, even the memory card was damaged really badly.

There is no point for AAIB even trying to download the aft one when the front one is perfectly fine. Anyways the aft one is actually the less important one in this case due to it losing electrical power during the engine shutdown and the front one was actually still supported by electricity and therefore recorded the last moments.

AAIB never stated in the report that data could be downloaded from the aft one and only stated how poor the condition the aft one was in.

I hope you understand why I made that edit to change to only the front recorder. JCSigma2000 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I do understand it, and like I said, it is probably fine. I imagine that the AAIB will look at the data from the damaged one if any of it can be retrieved. (They probably sent it to the US for that purpose). Xan747 (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Xan747 Thanks for understanding. JCSigma2000 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

SL7 bus route

You will need a reliable source to add the ev infomation on the SL7 page. i can only find a buses article that says it will use BYD BD11. Also i was the IP that reverted your edits, i was accidently logged out. DAmik001 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I dont want to get to an edit war so i will put it there DAmik001 (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I have now added the BYD BD11 on to the SL7's page. Can we agree now? DAmik001 (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright thank you but just saying bus fandom is 100% by far more reliable than Wikipedia around this topic. It contains way more information than Wikipedia at this point. JCSigma2000 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

There is like 3 fandoms saying it has PVR of 21. JCSigma2000 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple edits saying that wiki is unreliable such as [1] and [2] and there is also [3] and [4]. This is because it is Self-published/User-Generated. Even if they look more reliable than wikipedia, they're still unreliable. DAmik001 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

alright than. thx JCSigma2000 (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, read the section bulletpointed 1. in WP: CRYSTAL. It says that future information must be sourced carefully with reliable sources and must be almost certain to happen. The Fandom sources dosnt have any official TfL announcement meaning it could be made up, as anybody can edit a fandom page. DAmik001 (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

To change the year that the BYD BD11s will be delivered in to 2026, you must add a new sources. The current source says that they will come in 2025 and changing the date to 2026 while that source remains is Original Reasearch. DAmik001 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

So are you going to put in 2025? Sure go on... JCSigma2000 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The text can't say that the BYD BD11s will be delivered in 2026 as the source dosnt say so. If we change it to 2026 anyways, that will causing WP: OR and WP: CRYSTAL problems. I removed the date as 2025 has ended but it should not be added back without a reliable source. DAmik001 (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

ok whatever you want... JCSigma2000 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Angara Airlines Flight 2311

JCSigma2000, your edits to established aviation articles continue to raise great concern about the quality of your edits. Your recent change to two sentences in the lead of Angara Airlines Flight 2311 (which I've reverted) introduced a a misplaced prepositional phrase, mangled grammar, and a spelling error, while offering no improvement. I ask you once again to stop editing mature articles and focus on recent articles with high levels of activity, so that other editors can catch and fix these issues.

The aircraft, an Antonov An-24RV, crashed on final approach into a mountainside during its second landing attempt in poor visibility. The wreckage was about 16 kilometres (10 miles) from Tynda airport into a forest near Tynda in Amur Oblast in astern Russia.

And later, with this edit, where another editor had to remove errant punctuation and fix a preposition.

Celjski Grad (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

And again on AIRES Flight 8250:

flight that on 16 August 2010 that crashed

in poor weather caused by unstable approach and pilot error

Between these types of edits and repeated changes/additions to articles without sources you may soon find yourself on an involuntary editing break.

Celjski Grad (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Piccadilly line, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. I removed that content because there's no source against it - why are we re-adding it without any form of source? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I m sorry I was adding source, but my connection was poor and it took a bit. Sorry for the misunderstanding. JCSigma2000 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@JCSigma2000, using Flicker as a source is not allowed per WP:RSPFLICKR. Can you please either find another source or revert your recent changes to London Buses route SL1? Celjski Grad (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Celjski Gradsorry I was unaware JCSigma2000 (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Air India, you may be blocked from editing. Where in the first change did the source claim that the ten A321neo’s were only a part of the A321neo fleet? Not only that, Air India fleet lists ten A321neos in the fleet. And where in the second change does the source mention the crash as being the second deadliest? Celjski Grad (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad I have added the article from the *Air India* website which definitely can’t contain wrong information. Maybe I suggest you read the whole source before challenging me because one of the old sources actually supports my change already, JCSigma2000 (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a proper source this time. I described above how the existing source did not support your change:

The existing source says "Air India also includes Vistara planes that can offer in-flight wi-fi connectivity. They are as follows: 10 Airbus A321neo". This says nothing about it being " part of its A321neo fleet" as you wrote. As I also mentioned, Air India fleet lists ten A321neos in the fleet, which means it's all of them. So somewhere in all of this, either Air India is wrong or the Air India fleet article is wrong. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad  On January 1, 2025, Air India (AI), the Indian flagship carrier, rolled out free onboard Internet access on domestic flights, free of charge for a short period of introduction, on all flights operated by the carrier's A350, Boeing 787-9 and **select** A321neo aircraft.

This is from the second source right at the end of the part, the part that I said kinda supported my edit.

I am not sure either because awkwardly, the only ones with WiFi are all ex-Vistara except the literal brand new A359s that has barely been used at all.

The second source also implies that only *select* A321N have WiFi.

So I am afraid your source might be wrong but no one is really sure right now. JCSigma2000 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Citations go next to the text they support, not 2–3 sentences away with another citation in between—please see WP:CITE Celjski Grad (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience JCSigma2000 (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

London Buses route SL1

You need to give me a reliable source to add information on London Buses route SL1 and other Wikipedia pages. Blogs, Flickr, Fanbases, YouTube, Fandom, and Social Media are all examples of unreliable sources. Also, route SL1 gaining BYD BD11s is mentioned on the page with a reliable source. DAmik001 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn’t see it JCSigma2000 (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@DAmik001 these BYD BD11s have started running on the route already, maybe you can help me find a source thx. JCSigma2000 (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Can't find any, sorry. DAmik001 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I see you are trying to add more detailed info: such as PvR changes, Bus Model changes and more as seen on your reverted edits on London Buses route 111. Per WP:EVERYTHING, not every change about a bus route needs to be on the page. Only major changes should be there. New buses going into service can still count as being notable. DAmik001 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@DAmik001we just leave SL1 then even though BYD joined fleet. I mean you can’t really do anything cuz it isn’t like a single BYD joining the fleet will be on the news or smth. JCSigma2000 (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You added the information again and still sourced it the the same blog. Blogs are self-published and not reliable. Please read WP: SPS, WP: UGC, WP: VERIFIABILITY. DAmik001 (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I think quite a lot of people know more than 50% of wikipedia’s edits doesn’t even follow these rules. I understand you are trying to follow procedures but the point is; you know the info is right but you just can’t accept it. JCSigma2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@JCSigma2000, Still the essay WP: NOTTRUTH explains how Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources rather than if it is true. DAmik001 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, you have admit over 50% of Wikipedia edits don’t follow these rules JCSigma2000 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

These edits usually get reverted anyways. DAmik001 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes many do you are correct, I m excluding these from the percentage tho. JCSigma2000 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

For eg, I have seen so many aviation airlines fleet pages just full of unregistered accounts battling stuff. JCSigma2000 (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

If everyone followed these rules, Wikipedia wouldn’t have gone this far in the last 20 years. JCSigma2000 (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi JCSigma2000, please consider this your last warning before your unsourced changes are brought to an administrator’s attention. Other editors have asked you multiple times on your talk page—and not simply through templated warnings but with good-faith dialog—but your responses here (“over 50% of Wikipedia edits don’t follow these rules“, “If everyone followed these rules, Wikipedia wouldn’t have gone this far in the last 20 years.“) suggest you have no intention of following Wikipedia’s verifiability requirements. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad it isnt isn’t I have no intention to follow any rules, I am just saying many edits doesn’t follow any of those rules. JCSigma2000 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The salient point here is that you've been warned to not continue this editing pattern, no matter how far you think it might set Wikpedia back if we could write any old thing in articles without proper citations to reliable sources. Xan747 (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

All Nippon Airways Flight 58

Why did you think “trailed” was an appropriate change to “tried” in this edit? Celjski Grad (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Senne Lammens

Hi. Please do not add that a transfer is done unless it is officially confirmed by the club. A random person on Twitter is absolutely not a reliable source; see WP:TWITTER. Please also don't revert other user's edits without any explanation. Thanks and best regards, — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I just added a new source?? JCSigma2000 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've added another source - it had just been a revert at the time. But even at this, WP:TRANSFERMARKT is not considered a reliable source. Furthermore, the article provided does not confirm that the transfer is a done deal. Please wait until the club confirms the transfer, like we do for every other player. Thanks, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

What if Manchester United post the signing on twitter does that count? *not in my case rn* JCSigma2000 (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

If the club account does post it on Twitter, it'll likely be with a link confirming it on their official website. Either way as it's an official club communication, that can be used to back it up. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

To confirm a new signing cuz u know obviously, the most important point is the player holding his shirt in the United kit in this case, which will also take quite a while. But he has signed the contract already and completed medical JCSigma2000 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

September 2025

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Cathay Pacific, you may be blocked from editing. You are of course free to revert editors - however, reverting without explaining why in your edit summary is strongly discouraged. Additionally, why are we removing a source and replacing that source with a completely unsourced paragraph? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Problem solved involving misunderstanding JCSigma2000 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

What misunderstanding? You were reverted here with the edit message Unexplained reversion - the user is removing a valid source and instead changing the paragraph without a source

You then reverted that edit with the message About to add source

I'm really struggling to figure out how it is you do not understand that all article content must be reliably sourced at the time it is added or restored to an article. Saying, that you're about to add a source in some future edit is not acceptable because who knows when you're going to do that? This is creating more work for other editors, clogging up the edit history, and has risen to the level of actionable WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior.

@Celjski Grad: this is happening only a few hours after both of us warned him at User_talk:JCSigma2000#London_Buses_route_SL1 to stop this behavior. Xan747 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

There was a discussion on my talk page for further context. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Danners430 thx for backing me up JCSigma2000 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

My first message to you on this page expressed my view that you are an absolutely good faith editor. Of that I still have no doubt. But for whatever reason you have not shown an ability to consistently edit in a way that doesn't doesn't give other editors headaches. Reading the thread on @Danners430 doesn't do anything to change my opinion; it reinforces it. You cannot add material to an article that is not reliably-sourced. Is that not perfectly clear at this point? If it is, why then is this the recurring problem it evidently is? Xan747 (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

To clarify here - I’m not backing you up, @JCSigma2000 - I do not have an opinion in this dispute. I was merely providing further context to @Xan747. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Hong Kong International Airport, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Danners430 How am I meant to prove it, even if I have a source, where am I supposed to add it to?

On flight finder and flight radar 24, it showed the route by Air Asia has stopped already. JCSigma2000 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

A link in your edit summary perhaps? I’d argue that FR24 isn’ta reliable source though… it only tells you what flights are in the air, not route cancellations… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Danners430 fair point, what about flight aware or flight finder. Or maybe what do you trust or what do you want me to do for now? JCSigma2000 (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's not up to me as a single person (we just happen to be the two discussing it, but I'm not "the law"!). What you need to consider is staying within WP:SYNTH - does the source unequivocally state that the route is cancelled, or are we drawing a conclusion from other stated facts… or does a source fall somewhere in between?

I would argue these flight tracker websites are the former, whereas a site like Aeroroutes is the latter. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I just took a look at the content in question and noted that virtually every entry in these tables is tagged citation needed, a serious issue which should be enjoying a robust article talk page discussion. Xan747 (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

... belatedly I see it has been discussed, but stalled after 25 days. Xan747 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I tagged them all a month or so ago… since then I've given up on tagging elsewhere and just remove unsourced stuff from articles where it's needed. But I'm being true to my word at HKIA and giving it a few months before taking a scythe to it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm there now preparing a comment advising to remove all the entries until they can be properly sourced. Xan747 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait til the morning and if nothing happens I'll yeet them Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Xan747 (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found here. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

January 2026

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Boeing 787 operators, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

My bad I will add a Air India source JCSigma2000 (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of Boeing 787 operators

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Boeing 787 operators, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Amitrao17 (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)