User talk:Fadedreality556

This is Fadedreality556's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

2024 Nairobi mid-air collision

The supporting source is here. It says it that the aircraft is 23.2 years old. If we are talking about when the incident occurred, it would be approximately 23 years old. Mentioning "and 1 engineer" is redundant since he/she is part of the crew. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down and put 2 and 2 together. It was 22.65 years old. Fadedreality556 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry I have no idea what that means at all. Please clarify. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the supporting cite that the aircraft was 23 years old. If you have a source which indicates 22 years old, please list below. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. Scroll down and look at the first box. B. Here. The Preliminary report Fadedreality556 (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sites certification is expired so therefore the info on that site might be unreliable since there is nothing there. And if there is info, I have two sites, and you only have one. The cite you provided is initial and might change on final report. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a third cite I found which support my claim on what time the collision occured. Here CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, it was working at least 30 minutes ago. But of course. Fadedreality556 (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well even if it WAS working, i still have more evidence therefore keeping MY EVIDENCE on the article is now a must. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now please stop adding those info u got. Thank you CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen. Preliminary reports typically refer to initial or early findings, assessments, or data that are subject to further verification, analysis, or confirmation. These reports may not be final and could be subject to change based on additional information or investigation. This means the preliminary reports are not always fully reliable as they are based on initial findings and may not have undergone thorough verification or scrutiny. Planespotters and ASN are verified. Planespotters, ASN, and Avherald all agree with each other unlike the preliminary report. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who's right (I haven't looked at the sources yet), please could you both stop edit warring. Both of you are in breach of WP:3RR right now. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, But something that is confirmed in a preliminary report is, ATC transcripts, aircraft records, and time of occurrences. So I will keep doing my edits. Fadedreality556 (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on WP:EDITWAR, [c]laiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My defense is that I have three cites, he has only one, and those three cites are verified. I shared my cites with him and explained how preliminary reports are initial and unreliable. He refuses to believe and keeps on adding HIS information despite being cited by me. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on WP:EDITWAR, [c]laiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how a preliminary report can be unreliable for aircraft information. Here's an AAID Final Report involving 5Y-NNJ in another accident, the serial number is 172-65726, here's another source, another one, and one more. While it is true that preliminary reports can have incorrect information involving what actually happened and how, the point of preliminary reports is to report on preliminary information and give a summary of known facts. To call preliminary reports unreliable is inaccurate as while they can contain incorrect information, you wouldn't know that until the final report were released. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safarilink Aviation Flight 053: Preliminary Report issue date

Hi @Fadedreality556: Per these two edits, [1]; [2], it is shown that you've cited the Final Report in the article with the date, 3 April 2024, added in. However, this date does not appear to be mentioned in the AAID's preliminary report nor the investigation website. I was wondering, since you were the one who added it in, whether you recall where you got the date from. Best regards. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I might have typed it wrong, as that was when I added it I think. Fadedreality556 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source

...indeed--see Wikipedia:IMDB. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image changing

Can you explain why you keep changing images in infoboxes when the previous images were fine as well? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have kept on changing the photo because A. It is a better photo and B. It is closer to the accident date than the other picture. Fadedreality556 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. However, when dealing with aircraft infobox images, it's best to get a consensus first, as recommended by WP:AIR. I hope you understand. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, a consensus is not needed however. Fadedreality556 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When your edit has been reverted or if you're changing images on popular articles, such as UAL175, then yes you do in fact need consensus. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please find consensus first, aviation articles are plagued with image changes according to the tastes of individual editors, and consensus reduces churn. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with Acroterion's comments above. Please do not delete any images without giving a valid explanation. Also seek consensus with experienced editors before making deletions. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reversion of my edit

Hello Fadedreality556

I made an edit a couple weeks ago on the 1985 Manchester Airport disaster by switching out the cover image of the article for an image of the aftermath of the accident, it appears that you unexplainedly reverted it, if this was not you, I apologize profusely, but if it was you, why? Lolzer3k 00:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you had deleted it from the article, so I re-added it. Fadedreality556 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image of the plane in flight was deleted because there is already an image of the plane taxiing on a runway, which is why it was not readded, I believe 2 images of an aircraft are not needed. for now I will revert your edit. Lolzer3k 03:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other image was outdated, and I thought I removed that one to replace it, but turns out I didn't. I will keep the aftermath photo at the top of the infobox, but I will put the newer photo in the middle of the infobox instead of the outdated one. Fadedreality556 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]