User:G1ggy/WelcomeG1ggy! 01:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! can you put my Edward Rutledge sentince back in John Adams THANKS! Salveevery1 (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'd love to oblige the request. User:Arkyan ran an application that automatically generated from census data and uploaded these types of .svg maps, however city articles that already had maps in them were ignored by this script. Therefore, a lot of maps were left out. I guess the only choice will be to create them individually.

There is one issue for which I'd like your input. I know the definition for what an 'incorporated' and 'unincorporated' area is in Virginia is a bit different from a lot of other states (as are most of the Northern Atlantic states, it seems.) I haven't really worked on any East Coast maps, but I know User:Arkyan had a bit of difficulty in distinguishing that difference, particularly for some maps of New Jersey cities (s)he uploaded. As far as I understand it, "independent" cities are not politically part of the county, so I am not entirely sure if Fairfax City should be included in the map with Fairfax County, as that is misleading. On the other hand, Fairfax city is the county seat and leaving the hole on the map might be confusing to people. So what do you think I should do in that regard? (I can only assume you live somewhere in Fairfax county or have some connection to it if you'd ask me to make that map in particular.)

Other than that, I can start drawing the maps up in my free time. Take care!

Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi -- interesting ... how do we know? tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know what? Ketone16 (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the mosque is "near", but not "in", Falls Church. Every RS I've seen says it is in FC. What RS do we have (not counting independent research) that supports the opposite view?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a geographic fact and does not need a source as it is common knowledge. The mosque is located south and east of the Seven Corners intersection and the City of Falls Church boundary starts north and west of the intersection. Don't get so hung up on "reliable" sources; you can't take every bit of information in a source at face value (a lesson that can be applied to other aspects of the mosque's Wikipedia article as well). The news articles use Falls Church as the mosque's location because that is its mailing address and because Fairfax County has so many communities that just saying "Fairfax County" isn't particularly descriptive. Just look up the location of the mosque on any map or in any online mapping application (such as Google Earth or Bing Maps) that has city and county borders and you will see that the mosque is located in Fairfax County. In Northern Virginia it is extremely common for a location to have a mailing address that corresponds to a nearby city: the Mount Vernon (Fairfax County) community has Alexandria as its mailing address, the Mantua and Fair Lakes (Fairfax County) communities have Fairfax (the city) as their mailing addresses, and the Seven Corners (Fairfax County) community has Falls Church as its mailing address. Some locations in the Sterling area of Loudoun County near Dulles Airport use Dulles as a mailing address. If you are still unconvinced, the mosque (or at least its address) has a Fairfax County property tax record [1], but I am completely satisfied that this fact does not need a reference in the article. Ketone16 (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesiting. And odd. The mosque self-identifies as being in Fall Church -- see for example their release on the Fort Hood killings.[2] And we've got bushels of RSs calling it a Falls Church mosque, and nary one that I've seen saying otherwise. In the face of all that, it seems odd to have a WP article saying that the mosque itself and the RSs are all wrong, and describing it differently, though I do hear your point as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I would say that they self-identify as being in Falls Church; they write "Falls Church" in conjunction with their ZIP code, which is appropriate given that is their official mailing address. A local may even say "Falls Church" as a shorthand (perhaps "the Falls Church area" would be more common) since not everyone even in the D.C. metropolitan area would know exactly where "the Seven Corners area of Fairfax County" is without adding "near Falls Church"). If you were talking to someone who lived within a few miles of the city of Falls Church you might actually say "in Seven Corners" to distinguish the location from the city or from other nearby communities outside the city limits. Anyway, I doubt that many people other than you would have much heartburn over this. If a reliable source says that someone is "from Santa Monica" or "from the L.A. area" (or even "from L.A.") rather than "from the Marina del Ray unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, which is surrounded by the city of Los Angeles and near the city of Santa Monica" I don't freak out even though "Marina del Rey" is the factually accurate location. What is factually accurate is that the mosque is within the Seven Corners unincorporated Census Designated Place within Fairfax County, Virginia, which is near (and in fact borders) the independent City of Falls Church, Virginia. The official mailing address of the mosque is Falls Church. What the reliable sources say is irrelevant to what the actual location of the mosque is. Ketone16 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your last revision. And one word popped into my mind. Elegant.

As to their self-identifying, I was referring to their first used of Falls Church in the release, under the title of the release.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you, I misunderstood. Ketone16 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thanks for being helpful even before you understood!  :) --Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ketone16, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to List of college laboratories conducting basic defense research has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary 'These are all major institutions, and a criterion can be developed. Title needs changing'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got all the maps uploaded and included in the relevant articles. Oh only if I were so motivated to fill in all the holes for the rest of the United States. C'est la vie... Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; they look wonderful. These make great additions to Wikipedia's articles on Northern Virginia. Ketone16 (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ararat scale, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

(t) Josve05a (c) 20:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I just wanted to thank you for that great article you've created. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would like to nominate it for "Did you know...". What are your thoughts on this? --Երևանցի ^talk 21:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me! I was surprised that there wasn't already an article on this topic since vordan karmir (or kirmiz) dye seems to be one of Armenia's historic claims to fame, particularly within the Middle East. The little red bugs deserve more respect! Ketone16 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is the tail end of the season for them (i.e., when they are above ground to mate), so it would be a good time to promote them. Ketone16 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I was surprised as well. Yeah, this is one way to promote them. Though it's pretty sad they're near-extinct. Once again, thank you for the great article and please keep it up. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I now have a (yet-unresolved) question regarding the fact about the value of the insects that you used in your hook for the "Did you know..." submission: see the article talk page. Ketone16 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note in the nomination page. Do you feel like we should instead propose a new hook, a more uncontroversial and well-established fact? Any ideas? --Երևանցի ^talk 18:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a day or two. I found a local library that has Cardon's 2007 book, but I have to sign up for a reader identification card first. The book may or may not clear things up, but if it doesn't, it might give me more ideas for a hook (or for the article itself). Cardon seems to be one of the foremost experts on the historical uses of natural dyes, and a good hook probably will come from the "historical uses" side of the article rather than the "insect biology" side. Ketone16 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the discussion on the article's talk page. Cardon's book clearly indicates that the insects were not worth more than gold by weight. Oddly, however—and unfortunately—they were worth more than slaves pound-for-pound. In terms of historical significance, she says pretty much what other authors say: P. hamelii carmine was an important dye, especially for silks, in Sassanid Persia and in the Islamic world during medieval times. Ketone16 (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks for checking the facts. Do you have a proposal for a new hook? --Երևանցի ^talk 01:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have much time to develop a hook at the moment, but I brainstormed some ideas on the nomination page. If there's an angle that you like I could make sure that the article has the right facts to support the hook. Ketone16 (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 November 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Armenian cochineal, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a dyestuff extracted from the endangered Armenian cochineal was historically used to dye rugs and paint manuscripts and frescoes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Armenian cochineal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks from the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in improving this article? I've added a few sources and have done some basic research, but I'm still having a hard time expanding it. Thanks in advance. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit busy this month, but I might be able to work on it here and there. Are there any areas that you think are especially in need of improvement or research? Ketone16 (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm just really inexperienced in this field and I'm somewhat afraid to make errors. Also, they seem to be relatively understudied. Their physical description is the part I'd appreciate if you helped me with. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at it. You just mean the physical appearance of the animal? Ketone16 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the physical appearance, habitat, mating, etc. Basically, the only section I'm comfortable working on is distribution and population. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will take a look. I added a couple of references, including "Mammals of the Soviet Union, vol. I", that should be helpful for future edits. Ketone16 (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Valdez & Alamia article contains important information about the animal. If you're interested and whenever you have time, I suggest you look closer into it. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, would you happen to know someone who might be skilled at interpreting Armenian population census methodologies and results? I have an open question on the Yerevan article's talk page about the correct populations of Armenian cities. I have tried inquiring at the Wikipedia Reference Desk and on the WikiProject Armenia talk page, but with no responses so far. Ketone16 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look now. I, myself, am pretty skilled at working with census data. It's actually one of the things I do best. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I think that it's not an issue of de jure vs. de facto population: all the population figures I cited should be de jure populations, but there is still a discrepancy. Ketone16 (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page. I think you are correct. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I replied to you there. Ketone16 (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I appreciate your removal of the editorializing on the Battle of Krtsanisi ‎page. I have tried to remove that sentence or at least tone it down into something readable for a while, but there is one user, LouisAragorn, who will reinstate it. I am watching that page and will back you up. This article's version I had managed a slightly less-bombastic version of his wording which he has cribbed entirely from the Cambridge History of Iran, which while a legit source does not make it infallible. Also, he is obviously not a native English speaker (itself not a fault) and seems to not understand how objectively horrible the sentence is, which is my primary objection - more so than whether it is factual or conjectural. I haven't had the time to battle him on each Talk page as he is more or less unreasonable in maintaining" "In the North Caucasus and South Caucasus, the Qajar dynasty eventually permanently lost many of Iran's integral areas, which had made part of the concept of Iran for centuries, to the Russians in the course of the 19th century, comprising modern-day Georgia, Dagestan, Azerbaijan, and Armenia." on both Qajar dynasty and History of Iran. Maybe more places. It is such a run-on sentence trying to do too much, same as in the Krtsanisi page, but since some PhD said it, the user LouisAragon will find it infalliable. Let me know what you think, Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you; let's wait to see what happens on that page and the related pages. Ketone16 (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were right; LouisAragon has reinserted the editorializing text and poor English wording. Ketone16 (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ketone, there's a difference between "poor wording", and almost entirely removing well-sourced verifiable text based on the claim of "poor wording". If you have concerns regarding my usage of English, being a "non-native speaker", you could've addressed that either on the talk page of the article in question, with me directly, or perhaps fixed it yourself directly per WP:BOLD. Or maybe actually reading the pages of the book that are mentioned, if you happen not to have done so. Lastly, you also removed sourced text that is important to the article and wasn't mentioned anywhere else, such as the actions of Agha Mohammad Khan's successor Fath Ali Shah. I concur that some of the fixed material was probably a tad too bombastic (though literally cited by the Cambridge History), thus I appreciate that you've fixed that. However, removing important sourced content just like that (let's take Fath Ali Shah's actions/policy mentioned in the last section as the foremost example, as removed here), is simply incorrect. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: Yes, there is a difference between correcting poor wording and removing content: I was doing both in my edits per WP:BOLD and you reverted most of my changes via a series of your own edits without opening a discussion on the talk page. I apologize for removing the sentence on Fath-Ali Shah -- I did so in error, and I will restore it (possibly with minor tweaks to the wording) for your review. Please consider whether material will sound bombastic before adding it to articles, even if it is well-sourced. I understand the tragedy of some of the events that have occurred in the Caucasus, but there are specific articles on the peoples of the Caucasus that are appropriate for discussing their plight. But thank you for your attention to so many articles on the Caucasus and its peoples. Ketone16 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ketone, thanks much for your useful and kind response. Glad we both agree on the same things. If you ever happen to need some help regarding matters here (expansion of some article, sourcing, etc.) feel free to let me know. )) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let me know if you ever need a second opinion on an edit, suggestions about wording in English, etc. I also have a familiarity with some sources of information on Armenia (mostly in English), if that should happen to overlap with any of the topics you are editing. Ketone16 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! - LouisAragon (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ketone, how are you doing? I was wondering, would you be able to perform some proper copy-edits on the lede here? It needs to contain all that info, but its rather difficult to put it all together coherently. If it ain't too much work for you, of course. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copy-editing and some edits to make the text more concise. You'll have to double-check whether the references are in the right places. I did remove a few details that I think distract from the summary and are better explained in the body of the article. I also removed an important sentence that needs to be put back in, but I thought it would be better for you to do it along with some additional information that I will describe. When I first took a look at the lede it seemed awfully heavy on the history of the partition of the Azerbaijani people, with relatively little text explaining the greater historical significance of (Iranian) Azerbaijan or anything about its modern significance within Iran proper. I took out this sentence, since the lede doesn't contain any supporting information: "The region has, as well as vice versa, played a pivotal role in the historical development of the Caucasus region, as well as neighbouring Anatolia, and more inland regions of modern-day Iran, and its history is inseparable from the history of the contemporary Azerbaijani Republic." I think the lede would be better if a new paragraph that focuses exclusively on the significance of (Iranian) Azerbaijan were inserted between the current first and second paragraphs. This paragraph could briefly describe the significance of the region within the Persian Empire (for example, it is my understanding that some of the ruling dynasties came from this region), its impact on the surrounding regions (for example, the Caucasus), and anything that it is especially known for within modern Iran. If you would like to discuss the article lede further, I suggest opening a discussion on the article talk page.

Also, I have a question for you. When the Russians entered the Caucasus they referred to the Azerbaijani-speaking people there rather generically as "Tatars". At the same time (say, 1800), what were the Azerbaijani-speaking people called within the Persian Empire (either by themselves or in official court documents)? And were they all referred to in the same way, or were the Azerbaijani-speaking people of Azarbaijan called something different from the Azerbaijani-speaking people of Shirvan (for example) at that time?

Thanks! Ketone16 (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ketone, excuse me for my belated response. Hope you're not offended my friend. Thought I'd say that first before continuing;

Thanks alot for your copy-edits; just checked it, looks pretty neat. I indeed noticed you removed some details, but I believe its great you removed them. They cluttered the lede badly.

Regarding your question; Azeris were called "Torks" (Turks) back then, and even up to this day, it remains a widely spread (if not the most used) designation in Iran for the Azeri people in the entire area. The Turkic speaking subjects and people from Tabriz, Shemakha, Shirvan, Ganja, Erivan (you name it) aka modern-day Azerbaijanis were all called "Torks", and I believe this usage stems from the Safavid era. Though, nowadays, the designation "Azari" (Azeri) is gaining much more popularity in Iran in order to refer to them as well. Btw, regarding your example; the Russians indeed often referred to what are nowadays Azeris as "Transcaucasian Tatars", but they often referred to them as "Persidski" (Persians/Iranians) as well. Don't think I need to further explain as for why they did so, heh. Thought you might be interested regarding this, just in case you hadn't heard about it earlier.

One more thing, regarding the historical fact that the territory that constitutes Iranian Azerbaijan was "always" called Azerbaijan, and that the Republic of Azerbaijan literally stole the name for their newly proclaimed republic some decades ago. Do you think more emphasis should be put on this fact in the lede, by mentioning as what precisely the territory to the north of the Aras river was called? (Arran, Shirvan) Especially as its so recent that the "Azerbaijani government" copied this name and proclaimed it as the name of their newly established republic, it might be a further valuable addition? Let me know what you think. :-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for explaining some of the history of the nomenclature of the Azeris in Iran. In response to your suggestion, I tried to improve the lede of the Azerbaijan (Iran) article to clarify that Iranian Azerbaijan is (historic) Azerbaijan and that the modern republic took the name from the Iranian territory. Regarding Arran and Shirvan, I wonder whether it might be too complicated to get into naming the territories north of the Aras River in the lede. First, Arran and Shirvan seem to have different geographic extents. Also, in addition to Shirvan, there are other regions that were later incorporated into the Republic of Azerbaijan or administratively assigned to it as autonomous areas: Quba, Ganja, part of the Talysh region, Karabagh, Nakhchivan, etc. It would be simpler if the territory of the modern Republic of Azerbaijan corresponded one-to-one with a single historic region, but the situation is more complex than that, and so it might be better addressed in the body of the article instead of the lede. Ketone16 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; if there's anything else, you know you can always leave me a comment or ping me as I mentioned priorly as well. :-) Yeah, I have to say, having had a second thought, I concur with your idea; adding information regarding Shirvan and Arran in the lede might indeed possibly make it all too complicated. I wonder btw, on a side note, why the English wiki doesn't even have an article regarding this whole naming controversy? Its a very important topic at least. The Russian Wiki does have an article about it for example (haven't had the opportunity to take an in-depth look at it though). I started writing some stuff about this some time ago in a word document, supported by historical and modern references, but the topic is one that needs to be well-written right from the start in my opinion, and therefore requires alot of research in order to reach this quality standard right from the start. Its definetely worth it, but I simply don't have enough time atm to make such large/major contributions atm. Therefore I had to cease the plain in order to make an article regarding the name of "Azerbaijan". At least for the time being. Oh well. Bests and thanks again for your efforts, Ketone. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ketone. Regarding this tag added by another user, would you think Frederik Coene is RS "enough" to be used as a reference?[3] page 5.

“Some literature draws the southern border of the Caucasus eco-region even lower and includes the entire Chorokhi and Aras basins (in Turkey) and part of the Turkish Black Sea Coast, as well as the northernmost part of Iran and part of its Caspian coast”.

This map, already present on Wikimedia for some time, is basically what the source (Coene) is referring to, namely the Caucasus eco-region. Please let me know what you think about all this? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right now the Transcaucasia article seems to be a bit muddled about what Transcaucasia is as a concept. Do you know what the origin of the Russian term for the region is? In the past I've understood "Transcaucasus" to be primarily a political term for the Russian-controlled territories south of the Greater Caucasus. Those borders, of course, changed over time. I suppose the region could also be defined by physical geography (as in the ecoregion definition), but is that the main way the term was used historically? If my limited understanding of the terminology is correct, I'd prefer for the article basically to say that "Transcaucasia = Georgia + Armenia + Azerbaijan", with a note saying that the exact boundaries of the region shifted over time due to shifting borders, and that some authors use a physical geography definition of the region as well. Please let me know if my understanding is totally wrong. Ketone16 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ketone,

-Your understanding of the concept of Transcaucasia is how I always learned it as well. It "originated" and "developed" in the era of Russian conquests of the Caucasus, and referred to the area to the south of the Caucasus mountains which Russia controlled/started to control (with shifing borders obviously). Post 1991, Trancaucasia indeed basically refers to the same territory, now comprising three independant nations, namely Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Today, furthermore, it is synonymous with the termination South Caucasus as well.

-Yeah I was thinking about that as well, some note/sentence regarding the physical geography definition, should suffice.

Would you perhaps be willing to fix/make these additions accordingly? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would need a reliable source for the political geography definition. Ketone16 (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related to our discussion of several months ago. Thought you might be interested; [4][5][6] Hope its viewable for you. All the best, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ketone16. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ketone16. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first edit. I was trying to help. Perhaps I've not assumed good faith myself too. Sorry about that. There's a gap in time after the second missile hit and when it hit the ground. I'm trying to find decent sources that can fill this gap. Not my own work either. Knowing what an aircraft is capable of and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9GBd12brhU We need that missing video. The one that starts from the second missile's impact and ends when it's crashes. This isn't the movies of course. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.194.192 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even the latest NYT article cited states "The new video shows the airliner on fire, circling back toward Tehran’s international airport", this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/world/iran-plane-crash-video.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.194.192 (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2020 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ketone16 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ketone16. It appears you have broken WP:3RR at Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 per the complaint. There may still be time for you to avoid a block if you will agree to take a break from the article for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should be corrected in the article, and the Commons file updated with proper captioning. Good work.104.169.24.168 (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]