User talk:Ivebeenhacked
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Hello, CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
Photo of the aircraft involved when still in service with a previous operators
[edit]Hi @Ivebeenhacked. I think we should put the photo of the aircraft involved in infobox and put the photo of similar aircraft below. Anyway we should prioritize photos of the aircraft involved. Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- We've had this discussion multiple times and there are others who disagree with you also. For example: A United Airlines jet is involved in an accident, but people might be confused to see the aircraft involved but with a previous livery with the word "United Airlines" not on the jet. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
N999UA Photo
[edit]Hi @Ivebeenhacked. Why we can't use newer photo ? It show fully the aircraft and not showing other aircrafts. Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's because there was absolutely nothing wrong with the older image. They both have the same job: Show others how the aircraft looked like. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I did same thing with Air France Flight 447 and replace by a newer photo, you reverted it and say that: This is a better image as it shows the whole plane properly and not showing other aircrafts. See: [1] Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted that edit of yours because you replaced the previous image without a good explanation and without discussion with others. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think using the new photo is better. It show fully the aircraft and not showing other aircrafts, and the time it was taken is nearer. Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted that edit of yours because you replaced the previous image without a good explanation and without discussion with others. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I did same thing with Air France Flight 447 and replace by a newer photo, you reverted it and say that: This is a better image as it shows the whole plane properly and not showing other aircrafts. See: [1] Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Ivebeenhacked. I created Korean Air Lines Flight 642 (An accident of Korean Air in 1976). Can you help me to improve this article. Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll help you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much ! Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
2024 in aviation
[edit]Why did you readd an event without an article? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Because someone had draftified it by basically saying that the article lacked citations. I added 4-5 citations and re-moved that draft to an article so now the event has an article (again). And I'm sorry that I forgot to re-add that link to the article. It sure felt like I just reverted your edit without explanation (which is what I've literally done, regrettably). Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm gonna ask what I was writing here instead of making a new section, why did you add the midair collision when there's no article? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- TBH, I don't even know. I just heard of a collision while on Google and just decided to add it because of the fatality count (regarding the type of aircraft), regardless if it had an article or not. I wouldn't be surprised if my edit did get reverted. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm gonna ask what I was writing here instead of making a new section, why did you add the midair collision when there's no article? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft
[edit]You recently reverted this edit I made removing a 1959 crash from the List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft.
Per your edit summary: If you feel like the article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, nominate it for deletion or something.
Enforcement mechanism #2 in the inclusion criteria, which reflects community consensus, says that Any new entry that does not meet the inclusion requirement of this guideline can be removed by anyone; the burden is on the includer to prove that a new entry meets the guideline...
I did that. I'm not going to AfD the article itself, because I do not dispute the notability of the event; I only question its inclusion on the list, because it seems to clearly violate the inclusion criteria. Additionally, I started this discussion on the list's Talk page to politely (I hope) hash out whether the entry complies with the inclusion criteria, and the includer has pointed that some other, older entries appear not to comply either. Carguychris (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misunderstood. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)