User talk:Maungapohatu

Hello, Maungapohatu, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok so neither one of those things you just said has been pointed out 2601:601:8500:2430:B88B:3C16:7E86:1312 (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you just said what now? they are primary? and what? 2601:601:8500:2430:B88B:3C16:7E86:1312 (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

two of the sources ive added are long term video gaming sites that have all of that information on them. youre being absurd my friend. did you even look at them?

tip: use ctrl-f and search for "AMD" 2601:601:8500:2430:B88B:3C16:7E86:1312 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello? 2601:601:8500:2430:B88B:3C16:7E86:1312 (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, whtat's the issue with including ATR42 in historic fleet? these aircraft were operated by Aer Arran/Stobartair in same manner under contract as the Avro-85 by Cityjet in full EI branding of the respective periods. 39.39.85.188 (talk) 06:47, 05 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re anthem on New Zealand—You're correct, succession is instant, however in a legal sense the anthem does not change until the official proclamation. That has been well documented through national news and has become common knowledge as of late. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 07:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you decided to revert a citation to a source as strong as a PhD thesis, especially when the two other citations for the same point were very weak, but just fyi, a thesis is a gold-standard source. It's the product of years of research and undergoes examination by experts in the field, which is more than can be said for most sources cited on Wikipedia (including many books). I'm a professional historian of NZ, and I can affirm that much of the best work on NZ history is contained in theses; unlike larger countries, theses are often not turned into books. Please do not make such reversions in future. Axver (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Axver: In the Profession I trained in theses are always treated as unpublished maybe this has coloured my view. But maybe you over-estimate the value and rigor of many of the theses produced. And unpublished does make them rather problematic on Wikipedia. Much of the things on Wikipedia can be rather counter intuative. Let me ask you this is I was writing a PHD thesis and I included the justification for a detail such as this to someone else's thesis what do you think the university would say. I don't believe that they would consider this to be OK and thus I question such references in Wikipedia also, it certainly isn't as you make out strong.

My disquiet about this is that Poneke is so obviously a transliteration of Port Nicholson transliterations were very very common at the time, trying to makout that there is some mystical other indigenous word that the word eminates from is really and truely in bizarre land, just think about it for a while and let it sink in. Just do that and see who such bizarre thought is hurting. Maungapohatu (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691, you may be blocked from editing. 46.183.103.8 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691. 46.183.103.8 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

46.183.103.8 Please read WP:BLP we all have an obligation to ensure BLP issues do not get into the encyclopaedia and there is some doubt about the validity of the video. Also you are continually reverting a valid reference from a well respected and knowldgable aviation journalist. Maungapohatu (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 46.183.103.8 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hainan Airlines doesn't operate directly to Dublin. It operates to Edinburgh and then fly's to Dublin. When Hainan airlines operated last time it operated via Edinburgh. Trainsspotter4life (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsspotter4life: Then please supply a reference for this, one that actually specifically says this - working this out from an online search engine is probably not acceptable. Can you buy a ticket from Dublin to Edinburgh?. As stated before you should also consider why this is even important. This is an encyclopaedia it is not a directory. There is no requirement that these lists are comprehensive nor even accurate to the degree you are adding. Maungapohatu (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have already been warned about disruptive editing. If you are "not sure" about something in an article, go to its talk page and ASK. Luckily for you, I only edit as an IP. If I was a member, I would take you straight to the admin reports page for a breach of the site's editing policy. I suggest you read the section labelled WP:PRESERVE.

If you happen to have been a student at Oxbridge and you know something about the two cricket clubs, then please reply here and say what you know. In particular, do you have a reliable source which says the combined team was called the OCU? I'll certainly be surprised if you can verify that piece of misinformation. 92.31.5.221 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@92.31.5.221: Please be careful about throwing such accusations as above, please always assume good faith in others edits, you will not survive very long around here with the level of uncivilness you display here. A word of advice, it is always better to make small incremental edits when editing articles. Big changes tend to send alarm bells to many editors and good changes get lost with the bad. Also please see WP:BURDEN it is up to you to justify each of your edits not for me, although of course I could have discussed this but the swathe of your changes, most of which looked unnecessary, meant I reverted your edits which I am fully entitled and honestly expected to do. Maungapohatu (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real? The last time I read or heard such pretentious shit, it came out of Johnson's mouth. As for your "advice", you don't know what you are talking about and I suggest you read WP:CIR. Small, incremental changes!! Thank you for giving me a good laugh. Unbelievable. 92.31.5.221 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@92.31.5.221: Ok so no civility showing here. Just to let you know Wikipedia makes no distinction between signed in users and IP users such as yourself so if you have a complaint about my editing or my behaviour you are welcome to report this to whoever you want. I stand by my rather standard advice above and hope upon reflection you take note of it. Maungapohatu (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ps - who is Johnson? I don't have my mind reading head on today!Maungapohatu (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "what is Johnson"? It's a lying scumbag, now rightly in disgrace, that somehow conned the British people into voting for it in December 2019. That Johnson.

For your information, the professional approach to writing an article is to work on the whole product and then review it before publishing the final draft. If it is an established article needing multiple changes with whole segments in need of revision, do it all at once, review it and then publish it. There's much more to it than just that, obviously. The teaspoon-after-teaspoon approach is for amateurs. Of course, an editor might spot one error and correct that before then spotting a second error, but this is only copyediting as you go along and not the same thing as a rewrite.

By the way, I've re-included the sentence about the British Universities team which, although trivial, is an interesting similarity. It had previously been included in the introduction where, as a trivial mention, it certainly doesn't belong. 92.31.5.221 (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you said that I did original research in my last edit but that isn't true. I provided the reference that showed the edits I made to be true, and then said that this can be confirmed by looking at their website.

I don't think my edit should have been reverted as it was sourced with a high quality, independent source which does meet the requirements for Wikipedia GeorgeN123 (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say your additions were Original Research - I did say please be aware of where synthesis begins. I see no evidence of the "high quality independent source" of which you speak. Perhaps you could make this clearer with inline references for each piece of detail. Such a source will need to directly support that these routes are 1. operating in the general definition of now, and 2. are seasonal if so described in the Wikipedia text. Thanks Maungapohatu (talk) Maungapohatu (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Aer Lingus have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. The Banner talk 12:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Banner talk 12:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Manchester Airport, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 16:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you duplicated a move discussion while attempting to add a comment. [1]. I assume this was an accident. Please be careful when editing.

@Timtjtim: yes this was an error - I'm unsure how it happened but I was editing on my iPad and the "small" edit I had entered concurring with the proposed page move did not complete saving and timed out when trying to publish, I am assuming this is when the duplication happened. I can't comment whether this was a mediawiki issue or something induced by the iPad but the duplication was not obvious to me from the edit screen. Maungapohatu (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see you've been warned multiple times about disruptive and unconstructive edits. You appear to still be doing the same thing on [2] - why did you remove this information? The status of the investigation seems very relevant to an air accident.

I'm not going to revert your change, but I'd suggest you take a little more care with editing going forwards as you seem to be forming a pattern of bad edits now. Timtjtim (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and also @Timtjtim: again - re the above - It is clear that the summary field of the info box is for a brief comment on the nature/description an accident. This field very often turns into a protracted and tortured explaination of the cause and blame for each accident which is mostly not appropriate in this place. To my mind the "under investigation" does at best not add anything to the content of this summary - and at worst is misplaced and obvious. This was explained in my edit summary.

I am wondering if you could explain your comment about "bad pattern of edits" further maybe with some real examples of such. Maungapohatu (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So Timtjtim never did get back to me with any examples. In this case the only error was the editor playing up on my iPad - people are obvously not allowed to have things go wrong without being deemed bad editors by some over opinionated editors. Maungapohatu (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page was obviously a mistake, yes, but still one you should be careful not to repeat as it can cause a lot of confusion in fast-paced discussions.

I'm not going to go back and find other examples- you've clearly been warned before, which is why I pointed out to you that just jumping in to remove something clearly relevant is risky. I'm sure you're aware of why you've been warned before.

Remarkable that you're continuing to carelessly edit and, worse, respond pretty harshly to other editors.

You might want to step back from Wikipedia for a little breather if someone telling you to provide proper edit descriptions leads to you saying "I'm disinclined to take much notice of you" - that's a completely unacceptable response. Timtjtim (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disinclined to take notice of what you say too I'm afraid as you appear to be too lazy to actually back up your accusations. If that hurts you so be it you need to earn the respect of being listened to and nothing so far makes me respect you. In the cases above one was a blatent BLP isssue relating to a video of people dying which the autenticity at the point of edits was not well established - the other it was confirmed that my edits were not vandalism as was accused. The issue below was detail clearly out of scope of an encyclopedia backed up clearly by my edit summary pointing to WP:AIRPORTS content. I have a desire to keep Wikipedia focussed as an encyclopedia and there is much Wikipedia that should be deleted this I believe is well understood by most sensible people. Your attitude here does not help.Maungapohatu (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even after this comment you're continuing to engage in bad editing ^{[dubious – discuss] [citation needed]} without discussing, and then engaging in argumentative (and pretty rude) discussions here, rather than just backing down and taking it to the article talk.

You're welcome to take no notice of me: id suggest you take notice of others who have given specific examples of poor behaviour? Timtjtim (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid TimTam is correct I am going to ignore his patronising holy attitude until he can provide me with examples of my supposed bad behaviour. This is getting more like bullying than advice. Luckily I have had some dealings with Christian bullies and know just what to expect. Maungapohatu (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed an incident from Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, with reason: "not a significant incident as per consensus at WP:AIRPORTS", but you did not provide a link to the consensus. Please provide if there was any such discussion so as to verify it. If you couldn't, it would be considered disruptive editing. Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ExclusiveEditor:

Accidents or incidents should only be included in airport articles if they took place at or near the airport and The accident was fatal or caused injury to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground. The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport. The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.

This is in the page I linked to linked to in my edit summary, under contents. It would perhaps be better if you were a little less strident in your accusations. You have not had particularly much experience on wikipedia and a user name that does not give you much mana so I'm disinclined to take much notice of you. Maungapohatu (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user you are replying to has been on Wikipedia a year longer than you and has 4x the number of edits.

"I'm disinclined to take much notice of you" is a totally unacceptable response. Take a breather to cool off if you're unable to respond in a civil manner. Timtjtim (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea how much experience I have editing Wikipedia. I think you really need to examine your motives here. This and all of your comments have been entirely inappropriate. Maungapohatu (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Be factual and evidential when speaking. Don't let the ego of having more experience come into your response. Ridiculing my experience justifies that you consider me a newcomer, and if so you should read WP:DONTBITE. You did not show the experience you claimed in your response. Whatsoever, I am here to discuss.

This is in the page I linked to linked to in my edit summary- there is nothing related to that in the page you wikilinked, but on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Also read on top- "This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." So you could have started a discussion at talk page for this case.

Articles suggested: WP:CIVIL, Wikimedia Foundation Non-Discrimination Policy and Wikipedia:Society. With regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the reference I gave to the policy -

Go to WP:AIRPORTS - go to Page content - go to "Accidents and Incidents". As you will see this is where I cut and pasted the policy above. Your reversion of my edit was directly against this policy.

I am at a loss as to why you listed the Discrimination Policy above I find that extremely strange and somewhat distasteful - perhaps you can explain why you did that. And as for CIVIL and SOCIETY I believe you should read and understand these as I do not see you respecting these at all by your interactions above.

Maungapohatu (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still could not find "Accidents and Incidents" on WP:AIRPORTS. Even Ctrl+F and searching "incidents" shows 0 results. Maybe by 'page content' you mean me to go on some other page linked to WP:AIRPORTS? Also, the use of statements like I'm disinclined to take much notice of you and bragging about your existence which is not apparent, to make other editors feel inferior, is the reason I suggested you those articles. Also I accused you of anything, but notified you that if you could not provide discussion (due to inactivity etc.) then your edits may be marked as unconstructive (i.e. disruptive, which far from vandalism may also be made in good faith). Please don't make out the meaning of what I say without confirming. Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow where I said the policy above was and you will find it. The page has tabs which is why search is not finding it. You clearly are not reading what I am saying. You have also not satisfactorily explained why you mentioned the discrimination policy. Please also quote directly to me where I am bragging about my existence. Maungapohatu (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy! What you provided is a set of suggested guidelines, and if you read it, it says:

Remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article.

So stop calling it policy. You cannot enforce it. Additionally, I don't see it difficult to find you boasting your experience, but still a help to you-

You have no idea how much experience I have editing Wikipedia.

Also I suggest you reading the discrimination policy so that you stop getting disinclined to take much notice of "unexperienced editors". To be honest, I have much more experience than you, but I didn't mention it in any part upto now to argue you, because being experienced doesn't make you auto-right. Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above I used the word policy with a lower case p, perhaps a better word here would have been consensus. Consensus was my original description of this in my original edit summary. Policy with a small p can mean an agreed formal way of doing things and that is the definition I intended here. It is I believe uncontroversial that WP:AIRPORTS is considered the distilled consensus of the community of people editing airport articles and is routinely followed. The escape clauses are there in most such places on Wikipedia they are never a get out of jail for free card. There has to be a very very good reason well argued for any such deviation.

My experience quote you see as boastful was the direct result of and directly to another nosy editor and not to you. And was just a plain statement. Nowhere here was I claiming any unusual experience only that that was something that he simply could not know.

You obviously did not read the discrimination document. I suggest you do and then come back to me with your profuse apology. Maungapohatu (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologies (I don't know for what), but I apologies. I also accept your apology, which I consider you have asked me, in the same way you are considering others (not apologies but meanings, and level of knowledge in English literature, specifically in capital/ small p's which does not make sense to me). But yes, you need to first discuss these removals, and then in them you could present such "suggested guidelines" as a support to your idea. Also I still suggest you reading those pages, for recreation at least. Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, concerning your edit: We use these flags for astronauts in tons of spaceflight articles. I'm not sure which part of the MOS you see in conflict with these flags. If you think we shouldn't use them then it's better to start a discussion on the spaceflight portal, because that's going to affect hundreds of articles with (many) thousands of flags. --mfb (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then they are being used counter to what is written in MOS:ICON I would be interested why you think an astronaut represents or even belongs to a country or or how this addition adds to the article. This is especially true in today’s commercial space environment. Because other articles do something is never a good reason on Wikipedia. Maungapohatu (talk) Maungapohatu (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a conflict with MOS:ICON, can you be more specific please? The astronauts where you removed the flags are employed by the government, for the government, and deals between countries who gets to fly how many astronauts are a large component of the crew selection. Anyway, see above: This is not the right place for the discussion. If you think the flags are wrong then you should discuss this with the spaceflight portal. If you are right then we need to change many articles. If you are not then we should revert your change. --mfb (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfb: needed to wait till the weekend to reply. To me MOS:ICON is pretty clear where the line is drawn between appropriate and inappropriate use of icons within articles. It mostly discourages it for both asthetic and accessibility reasons. MOS:DECOR and MOS:FLAGCRUFT cover this generally.

More specifically MOS:FLAG defines quite specifically but not particularly enthusiastically where flags may be added : where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. Being an employee of NASA does not in my view meet this requirement. My edit here and this discussion is solely about this one article. It is important not to assume all articles can be treated the same. I could imagine that flags could possibly be appropriate on an article about the International Space Station for instance, and I suspect "space race" missions could similarily be appropriate, but I see no encyclopedic reason here. Maungapohatu (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see astronauts as similar to military units and sports teams here. I don't understand what would make this specific flight different from all others where you didn't remove the flags. Boeing Starliner-1, Crew Dragon Demo-2, SpaceX Crew-1 to SpaceX Crew-9, Soyuz MS-01 to Soyuz MS-26, ... It makes no sense to change a single article in a series and then avoiding a discussion about the general case. Either we should have the flags, or we shouldn't, changing one article is the wrong approach either way. I notified the project. --mfb (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting NASA is a military organisation. If so that is so out there I am stunned. The whole point of NASA is that it wasn't. If you didn't actually mean that how are the astronauts here representing the United States - nobody honestly gives a shit about where they come from.

Some of your examples of other articles may also have inappropriate flag use, thank you for pointing them out. Maungapohatu (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested NASA is a military organization. Do you think I suggested NASA is a sports organization, too? I said I see astronauts employed by government agencies as representative of their country similar to military units and sports teams. And many people give a shit about where they come from. Not you, apparently, but that's not a valid removal reason. Check any news article about crews. The nationalities will always be mentioned. --mfb (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]