Talk:Armavia Flight 967

message: 220.233.176.13 10:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And a large number of them have been documented in Wikipedia └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I agree with UkPaolo. Besides, plane crashes are not that common nowadays. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur as well, it is worthy of an article. Can someone please verify the times? The way it reads right now it was a 15 minute flight. Is that true? Davidpdx 18:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was true that it took off at 1:45 local and was to land at 2:00 local. However, even though it was going north, Russia and Armenia are in different time zones. I'll fix the article. --Golbez 18:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I have removed one revision from this page's history because it (and its edit summary) contained personally idenfitiable information of a person. - Mark 02:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article revision deletion

message: Was it really appropriate to put this article under protection after one vandalism?  Quite often we go through 5 or 6 vandalisms before we do that.  As the situation continues, I think anyone should be able to edit it.  Please let me know if I missed something. Clarkefreak ∞ 03:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there were several others that contained personal information about a Wikipedia member, so they were removed from the article's history. In light of that, semiprot is indeed reasonable. --Golbez 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! There doesn't seem any need to have protected this article in the first place. Blocking the user concerned would have sufficed. In any case, this article is linked from the main page, and per WP:PROTECT "articles linked from the main page should NOT be protected (full or semi) except to clean up vandalism. Protection should be kept to 10-15 minutes in these cases.". I have, accordingly, unprotected the page. The vandalism levels on this article can easily be contained. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: I hope that someone contacted the photographer of this photo directly as many photographers on airliners.net have gotten very upset by the unauthorized usage of their images-Reid A. 03:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If credit is given to the photographer, what can they really do about it? --JOK3R 20:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sue? Because they question its being used as fair use? Which may well be accurate. --Golbez 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Airliners.net terms require written permission of the photographer before photos can be republished.  I have tagged the image disputed fair use. -- Hawaiian717 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I do believe it qualifies for being used as fair use for the same reason as the image at J. K. Rowling's biography. I mean the picture of the plane is really important for the article; however I could accept if it was deleted, but I do believe it adds significantly to the article! -- Snailwalker | talk 21:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have responded on the image's ; I suggest we continue the discussion there. -- Hawaiian717 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the image from the article until we have found a solution for this dispute. The article is linked from the main page, and we shouldn't display copyright-disputes, as it could pose a legal problem for us. Snailwalker | talk 16:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I just posted on the image's talk page, I found a photo of this aircraft on Wikimedia Commons and added it to this article. -- Hawaiian717 04:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Copyright Violation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Armavia Flight 967. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060504181738/http://www.airdisaster.com:80/news/0506/02/news.shtml to http://www.airdisaster.com/news/0506/02/news.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified