Talk:Steve Fossett: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 18:54, 15 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steve Fossett article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

Steve Fossett was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
February 8, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 2, 2012, and July 2, 2016.

Current status: Delisted good article

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Aviation: Biography

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aerospace biography project.

Scouting Mid‑importance

	Scouting portal Steve Fossett is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was the project's Portal biography of the month (June 2008).

United States: Washington University Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Missouri - Washington University in St. Louis (assessed as Low-importance).

Article is being used to support spam

Should also be monitored for vandalism by the same spammers trying to hype their scams more aggressively. Perhaps that's what all the link modifications are about? I still think the obvious solution, assuming Wikipedia actually wanted to prevent scamming spammers from abusing Wikipedia's reputation as part of the scams, would be to annotate any article to that effect as soon as the spammers start linking to it. Put a clear warning at the beginning of the article, perhaps with a link to the specific category of spam. Today's is pretty clearly a 419 fee payment scam so the corrective link should tell suckers not to believe 419 scams. Shanen (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shanen, Could you be more specific about which edits are supporting spam? Thanks! Cxbrx (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I could, but it would be extremely difficult. It's easy to see that the scamming spammers are using Wikipedia's credibility as part of their scams, but hard to guess how. The basic problem is that they can wrap their scams around the articles as they exist, or they could reverse course and vandalize the articles to fit around the scam. Basically it would depend on the balance between their adaptability and their experience in scamming suckers. I strongly suspect that there are certain features of their scams that work better than others, and they know which ones because that's where they got money from previous suckers. Therefore they could search Wikipedia for matching articles, or they could make the articles match. I think it makes more sense to go after the part that's easy to see. If they send out a bunch of spam referencing Wikipedia, then any person who receives the spam can notify someone on the Wikipedia side, and then that link to Wikipedia could be turned against the spamming scammer, per my suggestion. The warning doesn't have to be permanent, but just knowing that their email spam will quickly become a warning to the potential suckers should be enough to deter the rational spammers. Unfortunately, I think they are pretty rationale in seeking money. Shanen (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Steve Fossett/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This GA was promoted in in 2007 before his remains were found. Article contains major claims that are not cited. The writing is also quite poor in some places. There should not be so much text dedicated to trivia such as the watch he wasn't wearing. I've gone ahead and trimmed some of it. Schierbecker (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps move towards a close? Would be good to close out remaining individual GARs now that the processes are merged. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as Delist. Schierbecker (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{talkheader}}
+{{Talk header}}
+{{Article history
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
+| action1       = GAN
-{{WPBiography|living=no|class=GA|priority=|listas=Fossett, Steve
-}}
-{{WPAVIATION|class=GA|importance=High|Biography=yes}}
-{{WikiProject Missouri|class=GA}}
-{{ScoutingWikiProject|class=GA|importance=High |past-biography=[[June]] [[2008]]}}
-{{WikiProjectWUSTLpeople|class=GA}}
-}}
-{{ArticleHistory
- | action1       = GAN
  | action1date   = 12 November 2007
  | action1link   = Talk:Steve Fossett#GA Review
  | action1result = listed
  | action1oldid  = 171147348
- | currentstatus = GA
+ | currentstatus = DGA
  | topic         = Socsci
+ |action2=GAR
+|action2date=8 February 2023
+|action2link=Talk:Steve Fossett/GA1
+|action2result=delisted
+|action2oldid=1137719200
+|otd1date=2012-07-02|otd1oldid=500138732
+|otd2date=2016-07-02|otd2oldid=727783354
 }}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Fossett, Steve|1=
-{{werdnabot|type=time|age=91|showheader=no}}
+{{WikiProject Biography}}
-{{archivebox|
+{{WikiProject Aviation|Biography=yes}}
-* [[/Archive 1]]
+{{WikiProject Scouting|importance=Mid|past-biography=[[June]] [[2008]]}}
-* [[/Archive 2]]
+{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|WUSL=yes|WUSL-importance=Low}}
-* [[/Archive 3]]
+}}
-* [[/Archive 4]]
+{{User:MiszaBot/config
-* [[/Archive 5]]
+| archive = Talk:Steve Fossett/Archive %(counter)d
+| counter = 2
+| algo = old(90d)
+| maxarchivesize = 100k
+| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
+| minthreadstoarchive = 1
+| minthreadsleft = 1
 }}
+== Article is being used to support spam ==
-==Too much unnecessary detail?==
-In the section about the finding of the wreckage and his body parts?  This whole section
-* ''This fact does not explain how the ends of the aerobatic harness he was wearing could have come free from the 5-point cam-lock, considering that their release requires the cam-lock knob be twisted a quarter-turn. Manipulating the cam-lock could not have been accomplished by someone other than Fossett. According to interviews by the Discovery Channel (who provided a camera crew the day after his FAA ID and $1,005 were found by a hiker) the one fact that disputes the official findings was the location of hardware that had been part of the pilot's harness. Pilots who knew him were interviewed by the Discovery Channel for a January 2009 documentary on the incident in which they expressed certainty that the harness could have been released by any animal that may have moved his body. The reason for their opinion pertains to the mechanism (twisting) required to release the harness and the fact that no other hardware was attached. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this harness was in use or being worn at the time of the crash.''
-Seems over the top. Besides - if you have seen the footage of the wreckage, heavily mangled and crumpled, and no large pieces surviving, it is not beyond belief that the force of the crash could easily have destroyed the harness. And don't get me talking about the programme I watched last night (''The Sierra Nevada Triangle'', on [[Channel 4]]) in which a Mammoth Lakes Park Ranger insisted that bears wouldn't have moved his body/body parts and that the explanation for his remains being found so far from the crash site was that he had crawled up there. Puh-lease!  And this ranger said he had seen the crash wreckage. There was '''no''' way anyone would survive a crash that did that to the plane. 12:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/86.148.48.248|86.148.48.248]] ([[User talk:86.148.48.248|talk]])
-:That ranger said the bears are too lazy to travel that far, unless there were some in the area. You have to remember, there were probably other wild animals in the area that could have gotten to him. And I've seen people survirve stranger things. Such as that person who was buried for 12 days in a collapsed building in [[2010 Haiti earthquake|the Haiti quake]] last month. '''[[Special:Contributions/Crash Underride|<font color="#C0C0C0">Cra</font>]][[User:Crash Underride|<font color="silver">sh </font>]][[User talk:Crash Underride|<font color="navy">Underride</font>]]''' 03:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
-==Could or could not?==
-Is the passage
-"in which they expressed certainty that the harness could have been released by any animal" quoted properly?  In either event, it is not clear to me what is being suggested...
-[[User:SalineBrain|SalineBrain]] ([[User talk:SalineBrain|talk]]) 18:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
-== Crowdsourcing possibly successful? ==
-Does anyone know whether the crowdsourcing effort WOULD have detected the crash site by computer program scan, once the actual crash site location was known?  Wouldn't this be of interest to searchers for the future?   [[User:SalineBrain|SalineBrain]] ([[User talk:SalineBrain|talk]]) 18:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
-== Mechanical Turk search ==
-I took part in the Mechanical Turk search and spotted a wrecked plane in one of my squares.  As well as flagging it up I contacted the search organisers by email.  I heard nothing back (unsurprising as they were busy), but much later heard on the news that through the crowdsourcing, several new crash sites had been identified, as well as quite a few planes already known to have come down in the area and whose location had already been established by the authorities.  My questions are - was anything done with the knowledge from the crowdsourcing search about the new crash sites?  Were they investigated on the ground?  How many new crash sites were discovered by the collaborative effort?  [[Special:Contributions/81.156.125.126|81.156.125.126]] ([[User talk:81.156.125.126|talk]]) 15:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
-==Zeppelin pilot licenses==
-I've moved this comment from the article:
-*''The previous statement requires additional clarification.  No special "license" is needed to fly the Zeppelin NT other than a standard, "Lighter-Than-Air, Airship" rating (under United States jurisdiction.)  There are well in excess of 30 pilots worldwide with current, airship ratings, both at the time Fosset was flying and now.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Steve_Fossett&curid=186642&diff=356257930&oldid=355702156]
-The number may be 17 or 30, but the source says 17. Is there a source for 30? &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 22:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
-For the record, here's the source used in the article: [http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0611030 Steve Fossett: Always “Scouting for New Adventures” Part 2], dated October 2006. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 00:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
+Should also be monitored for vandalism by the same spammers trying to hype their scams more aggressively. Perhaps that's what all the link modifications are about? I still think the obvious solution, assuming Wikipedia actually wanted to prevent scamming spammers from abusing Wikipedia's reputation as part of the scams, would be to annotate any article to that effect as soon as the spammers start linking to it. Put a clear warning at the beginning of the article, perhaps with a link to the specific category of spam. Today's is pretty clearly a 419 fee payment scam so the corrective link should tell suckers not to believe 419 scams. [[User:Shanen|Shanen]] ([[User talk:Shanen|talk]]) 11:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
-== Remains ==
+:Hi [[User:Shanen|Shanen]], Could you be more specific about which edits are supporting spam?  Thanks! [[User:Cxbrx|Cxbrx]] ([[User talk:Cxbrx|talk]]) 20:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
+::I would if I could, but it would be extremely difficult. It's easy to see that the scamming spammers are using Wikipedia's credibility as part of their scams, but hard to guess how. The basic problem is that they can wrap their scams around the articles as they exist, or they could reverse course and vandalize the articles to fit around the scam. Basically it would depend on the balance between their adaptability and their experience in scamming suckers. I strongly suspect that there are certain features of their scams that work better than others, and they know which ones because that's where they got money from previous suckers. Therefore they could search Wikipedia for matching articles, or they could make the articles match. I think it makes more sense to go after the part that's easy to see. If they send out a bunch of spam referencing Wikipedia, then any person who receives the spam can notify someone on the Wikipedia side, and then that link to Wikipedia could be turned against the spamming scammer, per my suggestion. The warning doesn't have to be permanent, but just knowing that their email spam will quickly become a warning to the potential suckers should be enough to deter the rational spammers. Unfortunately, I think they are pretty rationale in seeking money. [[User:Shanen|Shanen]] ([[User talk:Shanen|talk]]) 18:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
+{{Talk:Steve Fossett/GA1}}
-It is not clear from the article whether 2 bones constitute the total discovered remains or whether a body was recovered. The determination of cause of death suggests the latter.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.175.109.15|76.175.109.15]] ([[User talk:76.175.109.15|talk]]) 02:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->