This user is neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist, but a burdenist, and believes that those wanting a particular item of information in the encyclopedia have the responsibility to source it.
For goodness sake, use an edit summary!
<sum>:1
This user believes that every edit should have a summary.
This editor is a Most Pluperfect Labutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, Sticky Note, and Bookmark.
Nice one. Funnily enough I used syntax highlighting for the first time today when I pressed the button accidentally. Looks useful. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's a really useful user script that adds an icon to edits on your watchlist (provided it hasn't auto-refreshed) showing what category of source has been added Danners430tweaks made17:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
...and I guess the rather unique editing style will mean spotting sockpuppets (as they did in Italy) will be an absolute doddle 10mmsocket (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I’m in two minds. Disruptive and problematic aye… but I don’t like to see someone getting blocked for no reason other than they didn’t want to listen… but hey ho Danners430tweaks made20:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I thought their edits were poor. Overwriting whole articles with poor quality text - some of which is obviously AI generated - and never once in over a thousand edits adding an online and thus easily verifiable reference. I know that offline refs are acceptable, but to use them exclusively is bordering on unhelpful. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
He has been blocked for incivility. He reinstated some of the edits with only the month & year as start date. I seem to remember this is not acceptable but can't find any reference to it. To avoid me inflaming him further, perhaps you can take a look at the edits and deal accordingly? Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
FYI I have taken 200+ airport articles out of my watchlist (although I've kept the UK airports. They were just creating too much noise. Do shout though if you need help on one. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Belongs on the article talk page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have restored the edit you reverted at Gettysburg Regional Airport. Per Wiktionary, an incident is "An event or occurrence". Are you really disputing that the Doug Hughes incident was not in fact an event or occurrence, because that would be absurd?! The United States Department of Justice website describes the matter as: Douglas Hughes, 62, of Ruskin, Fla., was sentenced today to 120 days in jail on a federal charge stemming from the April 15, 2015, incident in which he flew a gyrocopter into Washington, D.C., and landed on the West Front lawn of the Capitol...
And yes, I have read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. This does not offer an alternative definition of an incident. What it does say is that for inclusion in an airline or airport article: "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry". To that point, this incident was the subject of a Senate report that identified serious failings in the coordination of security of protected airspace . 3 of the 4 recommendations by the Joint Committee recommended changes that directly impacted how airspace is monitored and how the government responds to breaches - that is clearly something that affects the industry.
If you do not feel like the content is in the appropriate section, you could very easily have moved it elsewhere in the article. Instead what you have done is delete sourced content with no good reason (something you are very quick to admonish other editors for). At this point, I am struggling to assume good faith. If you had the courtesy to raise concerns you might have before reverting sourced content, I would have been open to discuss and work with you as I did with the Airnorth route map . But your haste to revert once again is starting to look more like an example tenditious editing to prove a WP:POINT (although, I fail to see what your point is beyond gatekeeping). I am willing - hoping even - to hear a reasonable alternative explanation. But there is no good reason to remove sourced content again without first gaining WP:CONSENSUS to do so! Dfadden (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are the person wishing to add content - therefore it is on you to gain consensus for it to be added. It’s not on me to gain consensus for content which was just added to be removed. Take it to the article talk page instead of edit warring, which you did when you restored your preferred version. Danners430tweaks made08:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
ok i get that you removed it for not meeting verifiability policy. But due to Emirates rejected their 777-9s because they've been sitting here for 7 years. I think you should add content to it and for someone that owned the United Airlines Fleet page. They're gonna take the Emirates 777-9s ~2026-41661-96 (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpeg){kind=small}
