User talk:Check-Six

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] John Denver

John Denver had been asked to voluntarily surrender his medical certificate, which is not the same thing as flying on a suspended pilot license. Please do not add that information back to the article unless you can produce a source to back it up. Mexcellent 06:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Being 'medically disqualified' is the same thing as having your license suspended. According to the FAA and the NTSB accident report, he did not meet the medical standards prescribed in Part 67 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and a determination was made that he was not qualified for any class of medical certificate at that time. Check-Six 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not the same thing at all. Your medical certificate and pilot certificate are two separate certificates, you can lose one without losing the other. His pilot certificate was in no way suspended, surrendered, or revoked at the time of the accident, only his medical certificate was in question. Mexcellent 18:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
To use a cliche, it is two sides of the same coin! The fact is, according to the FAA, he should not have been flying due to his medicial condition (history of alcohol abuse). 'Suspended' may be too harsh a word, but it is a true statement nevertheless. Check-Six 18:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, how about we use this in the article - "Prior to the accident, the FAA found that he did not meet the medical standards prescribed in Part 67 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and a determination was made that he was not qualified for any class of medical at the time. At least a third-class medical was required to exercise the privileges of his pilot certificate" That statement is (mostly) taken from the NTSB report, and is accurate from any point of view. It leaves off mention of his pilot certificate, yet makes the point in the article that he should not have been PIC of an aircraft. What do you think? Mexcellent 19:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Works for me... It's probably the most accurate statement one could make. Check-Six 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Very good, it's been changed. Mexcellent 19:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page

Hi, I've been looking at your edits. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.

But someone has complained that your user page is more like an ad. It's okay to link to your site and state that you're involved with it, and describe that kinds of thing that are there, but using promotional language and including lots of detail isn't really suitable for a user page (or any other page on Wikipedia). Could you please edit it to make it more suitable? --Tony Sidaway 12:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have refactored your userpage to remove the advertisement. A simple link to your business is kosher, advertising content is not. --Improv 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, earlier today I contacted you about your use of your userpage for the purpose of advertising. This is not allowed; Wikipedia is not a homepage provider. Please remove the advertising from your userpage. It's okay to put a link there but promotion is not permitted. If necessary your userpage may be protected from editing to stop it being used for advertising, and if you persist in using Wikipedia to promote your business you may be blocked from Wikipedia for a short time, or if you are very persistent you may even be banned for quite a long time.

But we don't want to get heavy, so I'm asking you to please remove the ad from your userpage. --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have protected your userpage to stop adding of commercial content. I intend to unprotect in 24 hours. Please stop adding commercial content. Also, please stop blanking your talk page, as it makes it very hard to talk with you. --Improv 06:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but according to [1], my revised userpage fell well within the perview of acceptence. The 'offending' language was removed and reworked, and I focused more on the group than the website. So the problem is what, exactly?! --Check-Six 07:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that your userpage was being used primarily to promote your business. That's not in line with the goals of Wikipedia. If you wish wider review of this (and if you do, let me know), I can put my actions up for review in the appropriate places, but I believe that my actions are consistent with policy. I am pleased to find that we are finally discussing the issue -- I wish we had started to converse on the matter before the page was protected though. Talk pages are not supposed to be blank. I will unprotect your userpage 24 hours after I protected it (or if we come to an understanding on what's kosher for userpages, right away). Commercial content on userpages is not something that in the end is acceptable here though. Take a look around at some other userpages -- most of them say something akin to "Hi, I'm Francis, I am interested in foo, I started these pages: blah blah. Here are some other thoughts on wikipedia, here is a link to my talkpage". Sometimes you'll see a sentence or two in there about where they work or where they live. Your userpage as it was looked like an advertisement that belonged in a magazine. --Improv 07:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do not want to pick nit, and I understand your side of the matter. I was of the opinion my revised page read not like an advert (And I'll argee, a bit tacky), but more like an informative 'About me'. I'm willing to give it another go if you'll unprotect... --Check-Six 07:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I have lifted the protection. Please remember that the page is about you and your interests on wikipedia, and not about the Check-Six website. --Improv 08:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
So noted... --Check-Six 08:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Things are looking good now. The only slight thing I would note is that you misspelled "aimed". Take care. --Improv 08:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Barnstar Award

This user has been awarded the Userbox Star Award for creating a particularly notable userbox.

For creating the "User PETA-member" userbox, I award you this "I like your Userbox" Barnstar Award.Rosa 00:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Sir,as you have mentioned that you are a pilot,I have a doubt,it may seem stupid to you but can you please clarify it?After completion of my course and obtaining CPL(with Multi-Engine Rating),when i apply in airline do iactually have to pay a substantial initial fee,since i will actually be undergoing training in Jet aircraft?Also since i am from India are the rules different here?And one lasr one,do you know anything about the "American School of Aviation"?Prateek01 12:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank You Sir,your info has been of great help to me.One more thing,The School that you mention,does it have any special program for students for me who are not American.I have no connection whatsoever with America,and if this school does not have a special program i highly doubt if i will be able to get a visa and also the Indian Avaition authorities will recognise my course.Thanks anywaysPrateek01 13:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I moved your "Coasties" category

Hi there. At nearly the exact time you were making your Coast Guard category, we switched all the category:Wikipedians by organization subcategories to "Wikipedians in (X)." I wanted to avoid a long debate on CfD about it, since I had a feeling that you wouldn't mind it named to match the rest. Let me know if I overstepped, and we'll put it back and list it on CfD.--Mike Selinker 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nose art

I'm trying to rustle up support & info for a Nose Art page. Any help you can give would be appreciated. Thanks. Trekphiler 17:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Airways Flight 932

Do you have any photographs that you can share of an airliner that was used in the incident or any accident photographs that could be utilised to enhance the article? Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aviation userboxes

I just want to make sure before I undo too much (more), are the aviation userboxes supposed to be funny in some way that I'm overlooking? Putting "born in an aircraft" in the "pilot" category seems a bit amiss, and someone else had the text of Template:User pro pilot describing the user as an "aviation enthusiast", which seems rather off the mark. So am I missing something, or did these need fixing? --John Owens | (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I did the 'Pilot-N' ("born in an aircraft") as the serious logical progression of th -1,-2,-3 'Babel' system of userboxes. It does has a touch of humor to it, thus its popular use, and I strongly feel it should remain. The other boxes to which you refer I have no affiliation with, and hence decline to speak on. Of course, I am an 'inclusionist'. Cheers! Check-Six 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll leave that one alone (other than fixing the category noinclude part). I was thinking there might actually be a category of "Wikipedians born on an aircraft", i.e. those whose mother went into labour while on a flight, but it would be a reasonable guess that that would be a null set, and no conflict with that template. --John Owens | (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the rental aircraft I have flown over the years was involved in an unfortunate accident yesterday (3/18/08)[2]. Shortly after takeoff it lost power and was forced to make an emergency landing. Thankfully no one was hurt but the plane looks like it will be written off. It was a nice plane, sad to see that happen to it. It made me wonder later if there were userboxes for being either a passenger or pilot in a plane that crashed or went on to crash later. Maybe even allowing you to enter the flight or tail number. I could write one but don't want to duplicate someones efforts. I thought you might know if there was such a userbox. By the way I like your website. I found it before I realized you wrote articles on here. Keep up the good work. Skywayman (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USCG Userbox

Would you have any objection to adding the following code to your USCG userbox?

<noinclude>[[Category:Military_user_templates]]</noinclude>
<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedians who served in the US military|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>

--DieWeibeRose 00:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope - edit away! Check-Six 03:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur radio license

Me (Java7837) was fixing the code so there would be a link to the actual userbox itself so people can look at the code of the userbox and what now
I actually invented Template:usbk
I will fix the page i believe this was a mistake of yours if not please contact me on talk page --Java7837 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP meetup

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup 3
  Date: September 16th, 2007
  Place: Yerba Buena Gardens, 3pm
  San Francisco Meetup 2

-- phoebe/(talk) 07:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:User WikiProject Aviation History

A tag has been placed on Template:User WikiProject Aviation History requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] where is Fir?

Hi! you just edited the USCGC Fir article, with substantial info saying it is in California. What is your source for this info? Your paragraph is not footnoted. Would you please let me know if it is in one of the footnotes of the article, or how you know it? I am seriously curious. It keeps being reported to be in Seattle, or New York, or who knows where else, and it is unclear which list of National Historic Landmarks it should appear in. sincerely, doncram (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William L. Durkin

Hi Check. I notice that you undid the redirect of William L. Durkin with the comment "per discussion". I had a look, but couldn't find the discussion. Could you direct me to it? If you're talking about the Afd in 2006, the WP:BIO1E notability guideline has been written since that date. Consensus these days is that - in general - an individual who is known for just one event should be mentioned only in the context of that event, though there are exceptions where that person has attained a high level of interest. I don't see that high level of interest in William L. Durkin. SilkTork *YES! 08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion per your request - [3]

Check-Six (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Check. As I thought, that was the AfD from 2006 which predates the One Event guideline. If you still wish to contest this redirect I'll put it up for AfD to get a wider consensus. SilkTork *YES! 16:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Powers

Hi,

I've reverted your changes to the Gary Powers article - firstly, because such a rename should be discussed first, and secondly because simply cutting-and-pasting the article is not the correct way to move an article, as it loses the page history. FiggyBee (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To supplement what FiggyBee has already said, the reason cutting and pasting moves are prohibited is, as FiggyBee states, it separates the text from the edit history. The reason this matters is that because of the terms of the GFDL license, all contributors must be given credit for their work; the edit history is the method this is accomplished. So, by severing the page from its history, we've got an article that fails the GFDL license. No worries though, I've undone in and moved the page correctly to the new title. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William L. Durkin - trivial comment

What I meant it that it tells us nothing beyond what we have in the opening sentence - the man was born and he died. And we have the dates for that.

As you see, I have been working to make the article as presentable as possible, though I am still of the opinion that all we have that is notable is the events of the day of the crash - and most of the best information on that comes from your own - excellent - website.

What I have been considering is if we should have an article just on the crash: Crash of the XF-11 or XF-11 crash, and in that article have a section which deals briefly with Hughes with a link to Hughes main article, and a section on what is known of Durkin beyond the crash itself. And then redirect the Durkin article to the Durkin section within the XF-11 crash article: so a search for William L. Durkin would take a reader directly to Crash of the XF-11#William L. Durkin where we could put what we know about him, and the information would be in the right context because it would be within an article on the very thing that made him notable. This would mean that material wouldn't have to be copied from William L. Durkin to Howard_Hughes#Near-fatal_crash_of_the_XF-11 and vice-versa as those are individually edited.

Your site has some excellent material on the crash, including some great images. Would you be willing to make up such an article, and we could direct to it from the Near-fatal_crash_of_the_XF-11 section of the Howard Hughes article. What do you think? SilkTork *YES! 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Conflict of Interest: Check-Six.com

Hi. You've added good content, but I'm concerned about all the links you've added to your own web site. You should know by now that you're not supposed to do that. Please take a look at:

It's OK for others to link to your site and it's also OK for you to suggest such links on the talk pages of articles.

Can I ask you to please remove the links you've added? (The ones others have added are OK to stay.)

Thanks!
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)