Andrewgprout

November 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, you may be blocked from editing. Please mind your editing!!! ~Masa_117 ^{;) — Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)}

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Andrewgprout, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Stuartyeates (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverend Seymour Mills Spencer

I have converted your article into a re-direct as it contained nothing other than a straight copy from the Pink and White Terraces page. However, he probably does merit a separate biographical article. On a quick Google, I see this article which gives a lot of information which could be incorporated into a biography. There is also this which might help. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again - I have undone the re-direct so that you can create a full biographical article. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Boeing 737 operators, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Air 2 There

If the flights are advertised for sale in a single booking it complies as a route served by the airline even if have 1 or 2 stops between. From the schedules from 1st may the WLG to NSN flight is one stop every wednesday fare of $152 one way. If its not bookable it could not be added in to the list. CHCBOY (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2009 Fiordland earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Air Nelson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Takaka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Aramoana1976.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Aramoana1976.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey

The vast majority of photos on the national Library site are not usable by Wikipedia. If the permission on the photo says: "It cannot be used commercially without permission" then it can't be used on wikipedia without exceptional reasons. You certainly can't give it a CC-a license. Please check the permissions on each photo not the whole website. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Your recent editing history at Wellington International Airport shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inangahua Junction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nelson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wellington

It's a good question - I think one needs to have it one way or the other. If you wish to claim that Wellington is the world's most southernmost capital (and you may be right), then the link to List of national capitals by latitude should really be removed. That page (when sorted) puts Wellington as No.3 - so to link the two causes a conflict. The link has only been added fairly recently (in terms of the phrase that was there). I would be inclined to remove the link, if you are happy that UK dependencies don't count. They are called capitals without a doubt, so they should be in the list. Maybe the phrase should be something like "Wellington holds the distinction being world's southernmost capital city in a country". But I do think something needs changing - others will spot the ambiguity and one will end up with it being altered every so often. Have a think about it.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I work at Brisbane Airport and the awards section you severely trimmed and didn't find 'notable' is actually fact and has the right to be publicly available. It is not at your discretion to play god based on your personal preference so if you would please refrain that would be greatly appreciated. The awards were credited to the appropriate sources so I don't see why you removed the majority of them?

Wikiairport (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan

Wikipedia_talk:Taiwan-related_topics_notice_board#When_is_using_Taiwan_.2F_ROC_.2F_Chinese_Taipei_appropriate

MH17 Talk Page

Hi Andrew, could you sign your post in the MH17 talk page? The way it is it's not clear who wrote what. Thanks. Geogene (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

International Airport

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Congratulations, International airport, an article you helped in prove as an active contributor amongst the team over at the wikiproject Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement has now been recognized with Good Article status here on Wikipedia. Your contributions among the the TAFI team and Wikipedia as a whole are appreciated. David Condrey log talk 08:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your recent reverts

Concerning your recent reverts in Pacific Islander, please be open to Wikipedian routines rather than asking other to add references where it's not applicable. You can refer the article Dai people: when mentioning some words in certain languages, it's usually good not to add any reference to make the article look better. Imagine if I edit the article Dai people this way:

“ the term Dai at least within Chinese usage is an umbrella term[225] and as such has no equivalent in Tai languages[226][227][228]...[280] who have only more general terms for 'Tai peoples in general' (e.g., Tai Lue: tai˥˩[281], but this term refers to all Dai people, not including Zhuang[282]) and 'Tai people in China' (e.g., Thai: ชาวไทในจีน'[283]), both of which include the Zhuang[284][285] for example which is not the case in the Chinese[286] ”

where [226][227][228]...[280] contain dozens of dictionaries and wordlists for every single Tai languages... Do you think this should be the way we edit Wikipedia? --150.210.231.30 (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I can add some reference to depict how ancient Austronesians are similar to each other, but I do not agree your idea to refer something for every single word we write in this article. --150.210.231.30 (talk)

By the way you have already made two reverts in the article Pacific Islander. By WP:3RR, you can only make one more revert in that article. --150.210.231.30 (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Andrewgprout. You have new messages at Talk:Pacific Islander#Name Ambiguity.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Andrewgprout. You have new messages at 150.210.231.30's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again please instead of imposing a vacant accuse to others, point out the issue you concern in the discussion page. Be a constructive editor. Thank you! --150.210.231.30 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand

Hello, you take the time to read the references that place? do not talk about Australia talk about New Zealand, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanjones5 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

MH17

It should go "reporter interviewed the inhabitants" obviously and I think it's important as yet another evidence that the Zaroschenskoe version was a fake. Kravietz (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Instead of applying knee-jerk reverts to technical edits, you should get educated as to the reasons. The recent revert you did to my minor edit on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was a disservice to Wikipedia visitors. There is nothing wrong with the tooltip preview in Wikipedia; it is working as designed. There is, however, a problem with editors indiscriminately using templates where they're not needed. — Quicksilver^{T @} 20:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

T Can you then explain to me what was wrong with the templates and why they were changed back to something more inappropriate. Where is this policy written down? If there is a technical problem with a fringe piece of functionality the last thing you should be doing is changing or restricting widely used functionality to meet these technical restrictions - the functionality needs fixed or removed Andrewgprout (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Daniela Montoya

FYI, that title was a redirect to Avianca Flight 52 until the resolution of this RfD. --BDD (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kiwi Regional Airlines

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kiwi Regional Airlines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. John from Idegon (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad User

If you continue to go around deleting my posts, I will do the same to you. For every comment of mine that you delete, I will delete one of yours. Get a life! --Westwind273 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Westwind273's response is obviously out of line, but what is your rationale for reverting these comments without explanation? They're certainly not obvious vandalism, so removing talk page comments is not normally acceptable. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ashill this particular revert was a mistake on my part - this edit was in the middle of a whole list of reverts the said user made to my edits on a number of talk pages. This one must have got in the way, I should have been more careful it seems.  :-) Andrewgprout (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And there never would have been any problem in the first place, if you had not decided to unilaterally delete these comments last week, without even so much as an explanation. How egotistical of you! --Westwind273 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

TN AKL-LAX

Hi Andrew, We both agree on that the detsination should be included for it follows the guidelines for inclusion. Please join the discussion at WT:AIRPORT#Is_Air_Tahiti_Nui.27s_LAX-PPT-AKL_genuinely_direct_or_not.3F.CHCBOY (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

UA service to AKL (resumes or begins)

I have found a source stating that United served AKL from LAX not SFO (https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29761977/united-airlines-to-resume-auckland-flights/) and I don't know why the source for the route was changed when there was an official press release from United as the source but I have changed it back. Thanks! Citydude1017 (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

you reverted my edit to SFO Airport

You said "Wikipedia is not a travel guide". I know that, but it is a fact that US Airways still operates flight from San Francisco to Philadelphia (only one more).

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Air New Zealand may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Airbus A320 family|Airbus A320]] aircraft operate on routes to Australia and the Pacific Islands), and on domestic routes. Air New Zealand's regional subsidiaries, [[Air Nelson]], [[Eagle Airways]]
• |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

MAP

Hi Andrew, Thanks for updating the Map on the Auckland airport page I presume it was your effort, much appreciated.CHCBOY (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• The same editor Wxkjy who took away your map in September tried to remove it again today. After a bit of discussion he has agreed to keep it on the AKL page as there was no actual consensus on WP Airport talk page that they must be removed from all airport pages. Regards CHCBOY (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed primary topic for Southern Alps: New Zealand

I have proposed that Southern Alps (New Zealand) is the primary topic for Southern Alps. For the proposed move, please see Talk:Southern Alps (New Zealand)#Requested_move_29_November_2015. You're welcome to join in the discussion. —hike395 (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

DRN questions

Howdy. Why did you revert my question at DRN? I wanted to know if the case-in-question was being abandoned. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This was a mistake - early morning big fingers on an iPad without noticing. reverted back.Andrewgprout (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What reason did you revert my addidion

Have you ever known me to make a bad faith edit? If not why did you write in this edit "Reverted good faith edits by PBS ..."? as that implies that you think I sometimes make bad faith edits. -- PBS (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@PBS edits such as this "(Reverted good faith edits by PBS (talk): The atricle in question is not taliking about frace.. (TW)) (undo)" apart from proving I can't spell early in the morning are semi automatic when using the WP:TWINKLE feature. I'm sure the people who created this meant this to mean exactly the opposite to the way you have taken it. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Working animal

Hi, Thanks for pointing the fact that I forgot the reference on my last edit. I translated some of the facts from the French wiki page, but now I see that some information out there was not referenced. Otherwise, I still think that a section on draft animal in agriculture is seriously missing in this article, compared to other languages. So I looked around on the FAO website and found figures with references to correct my post from last week : 11% of the land in developed countries countries is worked with draft animals, 7% by hand, and the 82% left with tractors; while in developing countries 52% of the land is worked with draft animals, 26% by hand, and the 22% left with tractors. What do you think? Corto Malt (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Corto Malt You can't reference Wikipedia itself but you can of course reference the same sources the French wiki is using. One of the reasons I reverted your edits was that some of what you were saying was also being said earlier in the article. I would suggest you try to improve and add to existing text rather than create a new paragraph unless you have something totally new to say. This will create a much more unified result. Good luck with this.Andrewgprout (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the French article is that there was no sources and I hadn't realized it at first! I pointed it a few days ago but since then nobody answered. I agree with the fact that we should first complete paragraphs instead of creating new ones, but here I think that a paragraph on agriculture is missing. There are 3 sections in Specialization of Working animals : Transportation, Searching and retrieving, and Interfacing and organization. I don't think agriculture is counting in any of these three, but I do think that this is a very important part of working animals specialization (way more than Interfacing and organization for example, in terms of number of animals being used for that and of historical importance). But maybe this is a discussion that should happen on the Working animal's talk page. Corto Malt (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Los Angeles International Airport

@User:Andrewgprout No worries... :) EnRouteAviation (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Great Lakes Airlines hubs

I have started a discussion at Talk:Great Lakes Airlines. Please discuss there. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Air New Zealand

How did you determine my additions regarding Air New Zealand's service to Houston starting in July 2015, including the history behind it not commencing in 2012, were "not necessary"?

Bd64kcmo (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)bd64kcmoBd64kcmo (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bd64kcmo The reference you used did not support your claim - the history bit was about the route not particularly about Air New Zealand which is what this particular article is about. The additions to the Focus city were just simply wrong. If we followed your criteria just about every destination would be a focus city which is clearly silly. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout

Good day Andrew.

Good catch on the "history bit" which was intended to be about Air New Zealand's delayed entry into the Houston US gateway for several years. I intended to show that affected the airline's profile and standing, as well as their earnings and passenger flux. So although my intention was indeed about Air New Zealand, it turned out to be about United. Duh!

Now, I am looking at the criteria in Wikipedia which defines "focus city" thus: "In the airline industry, a focus city is a location that is NOT a hub, but from which the airline has non-stop flights to several destinations other than its hubs. Other terms with equivalent meaning are "minor hub", "mini-hub", "hublet", "key city", or "base". The term "focus city" was originally used by various US airlines as a marketing term to promote operations at secondary destinations in the 1990s; however, widespread usage has greatly expanded the definition.[citation needed] ". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_city

Admittedly it is not all that clear and it needs a citation, which I have not had time to look into. However, in no way did I, or the Wikipedia criteria, make every destination a "focus city", whatever the exact definition of a "focus city" truly is. Consider Air New Zealand's own website: http://www.airnewzealand.com/, clearly New York, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Honolulu are in large boldface font, with other select US cities listed in the next box. However Auckland to New York and Las Vegas are NOT non-stop routes. Only Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Honolulu are. This is also indicated in Air New Zealand's destination list here in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_destinations. So do we have 6 US"focus cities", 4 US "focus cities", or only Los Angeles as the sole US "focus city"? On their route map, Los Angeles and Vancouver are shown as North American hubs, not the other four, and dozens of other North American cities are shown as destinations. Now wouldn't that make Los Angeles a hub, and make Houston, San Francisco, and Honolulu "mini hubs"? I believe this would fill the definition, albeit a bit unclear, by Wikipedia, wouldn't you? See http://www.airnewzealand.com/schedules/headermap.aspx?countrycode=US&language=EN to see how that map is presented.

In short, arguably Los Angeles and these 5 mini-hubs, vis a-vis "focus cities", should be presented as such. Why shouldn't the Wikipedia article look something like Air New Zealand's own website?

Again thanks for catching that goof I made. I look forward to hearing from you. Have a beautiful day, Andrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bd64kcmo (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Air New Zealand may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of well sourced content

Please do not remove well sourced content like you did on the Metrojet article. All sources agree that this was a bomb/terrorist attack. You need excellent sources if you want to say something else. Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well actually LP, NO - the only certainty here is that the cause is still under investigation, and that is what the infobox has to primarily say. No amount of media frenzy and guessing combined with your particular POV will change this fact. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Pink and White Terraces Page

Hi and thanks for your email on this topic. I'm in position to revise this page as you note. I'm studying your help guide and will attempt an update maybe later today. Having no wish to revert to DOS-type editting, I'll use your new WIMP interface. Here goes. ````ARB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Counterrev11 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

LAX list

Hi, Andrewgprout. That list is the *only* Terminal 2 list directly linked from lawa.org. If you have a better source, post it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Checkingfax your reference is not looking at an official site of any sort - a more or less current list is on the official site but ordered by airline http://www.lawa.org/LAXAirlines.aspx. thanks Andrewgprout (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Andrewgprout. But, that is the site that lawa.org currently chooses to represent their terminal tenants. It is found by a direct link from lawa.org, but I already stated that. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Hi Andrewgprout. Please carefully read WP:Airports's rules for when to and when not to include references for airport destination tables. The only two times when references need to be provided are when a future destination is listed and when a flight will be ending. Charters/cargo sections are an exception, though, as these references are very hard to find and may stay on those tables. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Suppletion

Would you like to tell me what is wrong with marking a single word by making it a link to Suppletion? 110.55.2.211 (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

user:110.55.2.211 because it does not add anything but confusion. I am a native English speaker and do not understand what the link means, "take off" is not an inflected form of anything as far as I can tell. and going to the Link does not help. Linking a general page to a very technical linguistics definition is in my opinion not helping anyone and does not add to the encyclopaedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles International Airport

You've done 4RR, by the way! HkCaGu (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have brought this discussion to the article talk page. TravelLover37 (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @TravelLover37: Thanks! 172.58.41.254 (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Orlando

Hello Andrewgprout,

I have restarted the discussion about the long-going "Orlando airports" issue at WT:Airports. Your thoughts and opinions on the matter would be greatly appreciated! The discussion is here. Regards—172.58.40.42 (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

AKL Map

Hi Andrew, One anonymous editor has removed your destination map from the Auckland airport page. Until a consensus is made for its removal on the talk page it should remain as no agreement for its removal has been obtained. So I will revert the edit as its a very usefull map and its been updated. Regards.CHCBOY (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Light Between Oceans (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marlborough. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

September 30 2016

Hi. Thanks but isn't today September the 30 2016? I have removed the flight that mentioned as Fukuoka Airport-Shangai ends today but I've still notice that its been added in. 33aircharter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources on Running Routes

I see you are reverting many users edits on many pages for removing sources. Per guideline #10, the sources are implied by airline timetables, easily found online, as putting a source on every destination is cumbersome and causes clutter. There are THREE circumstances when you should add a source, as stated on WP:Airports:

1. The route is begining, ending, or resuming
2. There are no timetables avaliable for the airline
3. The route(s) have been frequently challenged

Source: "10. For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included."

None of these are the case on the Singapore Airport page and thus I removed the sources. I left the source on the Chongquing Airlines box though, because there is no timetable to verify this route, so in this case the source is very necessary. If you have a problem with this precedent, you should discuss in on WP:Airports, rather than taking it upon yourself to revert anyone who removes the sources. There is a reason that so many users are making this change, and I hope you are able to realize that there is a reason we are all trying to change this.

I hope I am not sounding to condescending and I am aware that we are both frequent aviation editors. I see AirportUpdater has also left you messages about this, whom is a very active aviation editor, please take note of what other are saying when you are reverting a lot of edits. So please bring this up on the WP:Airports talk page if you disagree, but for now the sources should be removed since they as stated "an explicit reference is not normally included." Stinger20 (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Stinger20 Thanks and Yes I sort of understand all of that - I can see why there are many entries contained in destination lists that don't have specific references by using the above policy - however I fail to see how this justifies actually removing existing references. WP:AIRPORTS can not counter the requirements of two of the core principles of Wikipedia, if someone has gone to the trouble of referencing something just because supporting information is easy to find off wiki is not good enough for it's removal (in fact go a bit further down that road and there be dragons). Andrewgprout (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Again at Stinger20 and maybe User:33aircharter. Is this some of the previous discussion of which you talk - the discussion here is pretty much why I think it is very very dangerous for such wholesale deletion of references as I am seeing from you guys.

[[1]]

[[2]]

[[3]] "You can/should NEVER write that references are not needed, or that they can be removed. The project has to follow the wikipedia policy, and WP policy states that everything must be verifiable, and that everything likely to be challenged must be sourced, and a source must be provided when someone challenges it. In other words, any editor can add a [citation needed] to a destination, or to all of them, and if you don't add a reference they will delete it. That is the policy, and there's nothing you can do to change it."

[[4]]

Andrewgprout (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Andrewgprout I have no problem with sourcing destionations on airport pages, my main concern is consistency across all airport pages. It does look odd that some destinations have sources while others do not, and I think it would look ridiculous (and time consuming) if we put a ref on every flight destination. I think this is a good discussion topic, as I think maybe putting timetable sources on the actual airline name might look better. The purpose of WP:Airports is to keep consistncy across all airport pages, so that is my goal, I am not going to push this very much, as I really do not have strong feelings as long as all airport pages do the same thing. Looking around, it appears that the U.S. airports do not have refs on any destionations, while many Asian/European airports have them in seemingly random places. This is for sure a problem that they are not consistent and I would encourage ideas on how to include sources systematically rather than whenever someone feels like adding a ref to a random destionation(s). Stinger20 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Stinger20 So if I understand you correctly you are only deleting references because they make pages untidy - that is certainly not ever a valid reason. I am also failing to understand your comments on consistency - the use of references is well defined in Wikipedia and I can not see how taking references off entries makes anything more or less consistent. Also it seems you have this overwhelming consistency goal in your editing - what Wikipedia documentation are you basing this goal on because I don't think I have found such a goal. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Your recent editing history at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Eck (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Philippines AirAsia CEB-SIN-CEB

Wow, you did really remove/revert the edits on MCIA and Changi Pages. Here is the source. AirAsia Singapore Cebu Service
Please add/update them accordingly, with all due respect. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.66.75.172 (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hainan Airlines data update

Hello,Andrewgprout.

I am a fleet planning engineer of Hainan airlines. My data of Hainan Airline's fleet is accurate. Thank you very much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clement Ma (talk • contribs) 06:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC) 

Hi Clement Ma - Then you should be able to find a published reference to back up your entry - please read WP:V. I'm sure you are right but these rules are designed to prevent people just making things up and adding it to the encyclopedia.  :-) Andrewgprout (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Please do not go against well-established consensus by reverting other editors' edits that abide by consensus. Please see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sunnya343✈ you are the one deleting valid references - You need to stop doing that. References are a critical and important part of Wikipedia and must be maintained. Andrewgprout (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You are the one going against consensus - I don't know why you refuse to engage in conversation building. Whether or not the guideline at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is wrong, it has been consensus for several years, and your freely going against this consensus is disruptive. Please note that you have violated the WP:3RR as well. I will be bringing this conversation to a higher level, as the ones at WT:AIRPORTS never "take off". I hope you can actively participate. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Lets talk LGA and EWR

LGA: I removed the source because once a route starts, just like any other route, we use the airline's schedules as a source (see WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT #10). If you disagree with this, then you should start adding sources for every single route listed on every airport page.

EWR: We have never required a citation for a route ending as long as it is ending in the airline's schedule. Again, if you disagree with this, you need to add a "citation needed" to every single route that is beginning or ending that doesn't have a source. The reason you won't do this is because a quick check of the airlines websites shows, in at least these two cases, that LGA-BOS is running on JetBlue and Southwest's EWR-LAS is in fact ending.

I hope you understand my point as seen by my two most recent edits at LaGuardia Airport. That said, I am interested to see your response. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Evidently you've had this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports regarding your disruptive editing, perhaps I'm not the one vandalizing and rather you're the vandal here. Look forward to your response. Regards. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have broken the Three Revert Rule at McCarran International Airport. Please work to build consensus before making further edits that do not abide by consensus. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

háblame please count my edits of McCarran International Airport this morning - and if you still think I broke 3RR you had better report me Andrewgprout (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andrewgprout (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is more in inquiry rather than unblock me now but - Did I breach 3RR here? I am not aware that I did. Every single edit I made was to revert reference removal and or to add cn tags, such removal of my edits in this case appeared to me to be vandalism as I can not understand how such wanton removal could be justified as a simple content dispute. I did attempt to enter into talk page debate with this user but I suspect it hit an edit conflict and was not saved as it is not there now nor in the history. thanks Andrewgprout (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for WP:EDITWAR, not WP:3RR. That you are concerned with the exact number of reverts you have made means you carefully attempting to avoid 3RR, which is good, but you were still edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

helm Vs. steer

@Andrewgprout: we are *way* past dictionaries here. helm is correct, but it is not used in maritime etiquette or in any of my 100+ book bibliography on sailing history.

recommend revert.signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 18:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Donan.raven: I have made a note of this on the article talk page [[5]] Andrewgprout (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I am not going to engage in edit wars with you (as I see you have been doing above), but an invalid source is an invalid source. YOU added a source that did not give any indication that the flight was running and thus the source was not applicable to the page, I was simply reverting your incorrect edit. You then added for the second time the same incorrect edit, it was YOUR decision to either find a better source, keep the route as it is obviously running just like every other destination, or challenge the route by removing it. This was not my responsibility.

I did not remove the source because I do not like sources in the table, I removed it because it was invalid for that fact. You are editing without even checking to see why others are doing what they are doing. Continuing this behavior will lead to more warnings about disruptive editing and blocks. Stinger20 (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Newark International Airport

I will add a reference but that reference there was a mistake as it said flight begin 17th of November instead of the 19th(read over reference)so fresh sources was added at later dates. 33aircharter (talk)

Replying to your message posted to me 29th Nov 2016, ongoing flights once started don't need references. 33aircharter 

I also notice you revert the edit, but haven't notice I also erase a flight that end yesterday and added a flight began yesterday, which will cost you to mistakenly re add ended flight, and as i said it's and ongoing flight so it don't need a reference or an explaination, references is only a proof of flights to begin or end. 33aircharter 

You removed my edits regarding Southwest's Newark to Orlando route. I had changed the destinations to reflect that it is currently only running on Saturdays and more importantly that it is not currently running likely due to 737MAX related flight cancellations. You said that you wanted to keep it "encyclopedic" but ironically that means "covering a large range of knowledge, often in great detail" . So my edits actually make it more Encyclopedic. However I have remembered right now that years ago, I had a problem with citing days of the week with an airport that at the time had no daily routes, so even though people come to Wiki looking for information, I will respect your rule no matter how misguided I believe it is. BUT there currently is no nonstop service from Newark to Orlando on Southwest until August 10th, that is a fact and people who visit the page will be met with inaccurate information if it is not fixed So I am going to put that back into the article. Jthompson5254 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Andrewgprout. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Canberra Airport

Hi Andrew, There has been a lot of editors putting Qatar Air to Doha without an exact start date I have reverted it several times but they keep putting it back in. If you have time you could monitor the page as they don't seem to get the message that it needs an exact date. With the reference saying 2017-18 Regards CHCBOY (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

LAX removal of 1956 crash

Not to sound like a jerk, but you removed my reference to a 1956 crash over the Grand Canyon. Both planes took off from LAX. If you want to get technical, "On October 26, 1944, WASP pilot Gertrude Tompkins Silver" should also be removed because that plane took off from LAX and disappeared. the actual crash / ? did not happen on the airfield. There is also a reference to the Sept. 11 planes that were enroute to LAX from the East coast. There are several other references to off field crashes and collisions with planes headed to LAX or from LAX. If there is anything "special" about this crash, this was the first air crash that killed over 100 people at one time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caryeastwood (talk • contribs) 09:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Caryeastwood: There is a very good page on Wikipedia about this crash: 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision - simply put the fact that both airliners took off from LAX may be important to that article - but the crash is not really important to the LAX airport article at all. You are right that there are other entries in the list that should not be there, and there is nothing special about me deleting this particular one other than it was the one I noticed. One of the things about editing Wikipedia is that it is often much better to make changes one at a time rather than big massive edits - particularly when removing stuff as this makes it easier for such edits to be challenged, and this is what I was doing here. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Airlines and destinations tables

Hello, hope you are doing well in the wake of the Kaikoura earthquake. You said earlier that you wanted to have an RfC on the Airlines and destinations tables and were thinking of what question to pose. I developed an argument against them that you can read here. What are your thoughts? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to contribute, I have started the RfC here. Regards. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

CVG

@Andrewgprout: Stop your disruptive editing, you are going against everything you "claim" you are about by suggesting that you need to source removed information. I am challenging these route on the basis there is no proof that the routes are running. I checked FlightAware and there have been no flights on these routes in months. I mean, come on, if a route is unverifiable, you remove the route, not the other way around. Also, you reverted on of my edits that fixing some terrible grammar, misuse of Twinkle, as you did not specify why you changed it, YOU MUST EXPLAIN GOOD FAITH REVERTS IN TWINKLE, IT IS FOR VANDALISM ULESS YOU EXPLAIN YOUR WHOLE EDIT. For that alone you could be blocked from editing. Finally, you are welcome to count the # of destinations listed in the table, its 56, so I do not know what kind of reference you want, so thats the only think that is "unverifiable" as you state. I am getting really tired of your disruptive editing and you will be blocked for continuing to make such changes in Twinkle. Stinger20 (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

PGD reversion

You've reverted my edit to Punta Gorda Airport (Florida) with the reason "Please do not remove references." Firstly, you've undone additional edits that were unrelated to references (moving three destinations to seasonal, removing one that's stopped running, moving a destination into the correct alphabetical order). Secondly, and it appears you've already been notified about this multiple times, routes that are currently running do not require sources in accordance with consensus. JamesRenard (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

JamesRenard sorry about deleting your associated edits but it is clear that you should never delete valid references and not replace them with another better reference - that is absolutely against how Wikipedia works. Please read the core policies WP:RS and WP:V and maybe WP:PRIMARY if you are confused. Thanks Andrewgprout (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @JamesRenard: "routes that are currently running do not require sources in accordance with consensus" Actually, we are having a big discussion about this here at WT:AIRPORTS, and we appear to be coming to a new consensus. I encourage you to participate in the discussion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sunnya343✈ As stated already numerous times by many many people - you can not come up with a local community consensus that is counter to the core policies of Wikipedia without changing those core policies. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr Prout, I do not understand. I am having an RfC in order to avoid forging only a "local community consensus." I have advertised this RfC on noticeboards as well. We are actually coming to consensus that a separate references column should be added. Maybe you would understand if you were participating actively in the discussion, rather than constantly telling others off and disappearing for days. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 15:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand Independence from the UK

I believe that the Constitution Act 1986 should be included as the final stage in New Zealand's independence as that was when the UK's power to legislate for New Zealand was completely removed, giving it full sovereignty. If you notice the pages for Canada and Australia, both have similar acts passed around the same time period that also removed the UK's power to legislate for their governments as well. The dates which these acts were enacted are included in the respective country's info box, as the final step in independence from the UK. Thus, I think that my edit should be kept to bring in line with the wiki pages of Australia and Canada, as well as to mark the date of full sovereignty for New Zealand. Thanks. Agent5514 (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Lufthansa at Philadelphia

This has gone way too far with Lufthansa service at PHL. I think it sould be left alone and let it be. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

user:97.85.118.142 it would help if you explained how such transitory information adds to the understanding of the topic and how it is encyclopaedic. You have not done this and without it your additions should be reverted as all they do is confuse. Andrewgprout (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding JFK

Hi. You took my edits on John F. Kennedy International Airport out of context because of my edit summary. But check this discussion. I have pointed out everything in it. AI 102 (JFK-DEL-BOM) flies in same aircraft at least every 3rd day and at maximum, it can fly in same aircraft throughout its journey on consecutive days also. Check FlightRadar24.com this source based on which a user earlier removed Mumbai from destinations. "Misinterpretation" referred to that thing. Vibhss (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Qantas to Sydney

I think the direct destination which Qantas flies to should be Sydney, and not Brisbane. Even through it switches plane, the flight number remains the same for both legs between JFK to LAX and LAX to SYD. However, while the same aircraft is used for JFK to LAX and LAX to BNE, the flight number changes, meaning they are different flights that happen to use the same aircraft. If you look at the Sydney Airport website, it lists New York JFK as a direct destination from it AND the New York JFK website lists Sydney as a direct destination from it. Thanks. --Agent5514 (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Revert in Taiwanese American

Hi Andrewgprout, you had reverted my edit in Taiwanese American. Please show me where the ABT term has been covered? I added it because I didn't see it, and it's an alternate term people use as opposed to ABC. And what specifically qualifies as "not particularly helpful"? Since nobody both within Taiwan and outside would actually refer to Taiwan as the "free area of Republic of China" other than its constitution, and average English readers are not likely to know ROC is Taiwan now, how is "commonly called "Taiwan" not useful? Mistakefinder (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Airline destination sources

Hello there, as you refer to WP:AIRPORTS when reinstating deleted sources, please also read its subsection WikiProject_Airports/page_content. There you can find the following statement regarding the destinations section: "10. For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included.". This is why we do remove refs from all of these lists once routes have started so please refrain from undoing our maintenance affords. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.191.142 (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

user:83.171.191.142 nothing in Wp:AIRPORTS says you should delete existing references, existing references can exist because someone has taken the opportunity to better reference a fact, or often because a fact has been controversial and the reference has become required Removing such references is against theWikipedia core policies including WP:V. Andrewgprout (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the aviation portal as it is currently our policy to remove sources from the lists which is also supported by the admins. I do see your point, but we practice it otherwise for quite some time. Refs are indeed removed once a route has started, they are only added when a currently listed destination is in dispute. This is why none of our well-maintained airport articles (e. g. those of major airports, especially in the US, the Middle East and Europe) have sources in the destinations list, this is also done to avoid overcrowding reference lists. Best regards.

UA ORD SIN

Stop reverting my edit! United's flight from Singapore to Chicago is a direct flight. UA timetables show that it is the same flight number with no plane change. 107.77.237.174 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

User:107.77.237.17 WP:BURDEN always applies Andrewgprout (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Source added already stating that United serves Singapore from Chicago-O'Hare with a stop in Hong Kong. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

thank you for adding the sourceAndrewgprout (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Delta as a hub at Heathrow

According to Delta, they list LHR as a hub and there is a reference stating that it is a hub but one user removed it saying it is not but according to Delta it is. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

What Delta says or better sells is not relevant for us. We have a definition what a hub is - an airport which is not a base FROM which several routes are served. Delta operates flights TO Heathrow from its hubs. It is a focus destination, nothing else. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.176.125 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Air Transat SJU

Hi, I know that in the article doesn't found the date of the first flight, but if you search in Amadeus, you will find that Air Transat flights to SJU begins on December 24. [unsigned comment]

whoever you are - "Amadeus" is not published information. Using it is probably original research Andrewgprout (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

RoutesOnline already announced dates for this. Already reinstated with the reference. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Secondary vs Primary

You always use this argument that Secondary sources are always great and Primary sources are never good. You obviously have not read carefully enough:

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy."

There is no "interpretation" of the primary source, which is Delta's list of hubs. While secondary sources are preferred, there is nothing stating that you cannot use a Primary source for FACTS. You are not allowed to use a primary source for INTERPRETATIONS/SYNTHESIS, stating LHR is a hub is a fact, not synthesis.

I will highlight this statement: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." That is exactly how the fact LHR is a hub is properly sourced by the primary source provided. It specifies that a secondary source is necessary for an INTERPRETATION, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.", however they are not required when stating a FACT. Stinger20 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Stinger20 The problem here is that the only fact here is that Delta says London is a Hub - but it does it in a WP:RSSELF source very open to commercial exageration, and against the commonly held definition of what a hub is. so ..reputably published.. NO, ...straight forward... well NO that is why we are having this conversation as there is no evidence that anyone else other that Delta itself considers London a Hub including those on the article talk page where this has already been discussed. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: Ok, I am fine with saying only DL calls it a hub so it should not be included. Since Virgin Atlantic and Delta mostly are operating O&D to/from LHR, it seems like it would make more sense to classify LHR as a focus city for both airlines, but I am not going to pursue this until DL makes it more clear that LHR is significant (i.e. making it bold on route maps, calling it a hub in press releases, etc.). I think we just need to use WP:COMMONSENSE when naming hubs/focus cities. Obviously it is difficult to determine exactly to call each airport in an airline's system. I personally feel that going by what the airline says is easiest and can be "sourced" even if it is a primary one. As you said in an earlier discussion, we really can only call ATL a hub using secondary source, but per WP:COMMONSENSE we need to use our best judgement, as other airports like DTW/MSP/LAX/SLC/SEA/CVG/BOS/LGA/JFK are obviously DL hubs and we are trying to write an informative encyclopedia. I feel like this primary vs secondary thing (and other issues like sourcing in tables etc) is hindering the ability to make improvements and keep the airport pages up to date. This is highlighted by a core policy, WP:IGNORE. The truth is that the majority of editors are trying to improve aviation articles truthfully, and editing with mindsets including every route MUST be sourced with a secondary source or it will be reverted immediately is kind of ridiculous. Same goes for the constant revision of hubs, if an airline has significant operations in a city, features it on press reports, bolds the city on route maps, or something to signify its importance in the network accompanied with a reliable source from the airlines, I don't see a problem with it per WP:IGNORE. If other editors have a problem with the classification, it should be discussed on the talk page. Such a strict interpretation of the "rules" is not necessary and frankly hurts the project as a whole, of course there are bounds to this, but that is where WP:COMMONSENSE comes in. Stinger20 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Pink, Black and White Terraces

Hi Andrew, just a heads-up I am inserting the 2014-2017 work at Rotomahana into the scientific record via a brace of refereed research papers. The first published in the JNZS last December: the second will publish shortly. Once the second is out, I'll seek your leave to do a major edit of the Terraces page, inter alia confirming their latitudes, longitudes and altitudes.Counterrev11 (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

PSO routes

Within European airports, some have info regarding whether a route is a PSO route, while others do not. It seems inconsistent to have airports in some countries (Sweden or Greece for example) already having this info largely in place, while for other countries the information was incomplete. Either we should remove PSO information *everywhere* (and the equivalent in the USA, Essential Air Service is generally published on airports in wikipedia) or we add it everywhere. If we are to remove the PSO information on some European airports, we should remove it from all European airports and also remove Essential Air Service info for all airports in the USA. Your thoughts ? Pmbma (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pmbma: What you are adding is directory type information, and mostly jargon directory information at that - making the tables even more directory like than they already are. Wikipedia is NOT a directory. If you think the information is significant enough to be included in an encyclopaedia which it might very well be then the referenced information should be included in a sentence or two at an appropriate place within the text. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Pink and White Terraces page updated with latest published, refereed research

Hi Andrew, as advised earlier I today added the fascinating new research papers (Journal of New Zealand Studies 12/2016 and Journal of the Royal Society 6/2017), by Bunn and Nolden to the page, while scrupulously observing Wiki protocols. This new research really requires a major revision of the page in my view. If you want me to attempt it, I'm now perhaps in the best position to do it if you wish.Counterrev11 (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent disruptive editing on Rhinelander–Oneida County Airport

Please stop making disruptive edits.

• 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 notice boards.
• 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, you may be blocked from editing. Jkd4855 Also According to what I've read so far none of the guidelines people are citing when they revert your edits is actually obsolete meaning it's recommended that you follow them but you are totally allowed to disregard them if you chose to. That one from WikiProject airport with the step by step article section by section clearly stated that the user has the complete choice to follow it how they want. therefore i ask that you not remove my icons. Jkd4855 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Working in and around the FAA teaches one thing ... pick your battles from those that matter. I would mentor any editor to update quality facts first and flags or non-facts way down the road. Yes, I stated flags do inform and add direct benefit to small airport data pages which have few departure destinations, but, I will lean toward good FAA data for runways, passenger ops, and based aircraft. Thanks, airports build cities, once a city builds an airport. AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Airport References

I have noticed today that your editing of airport pages has left a lot to be desired. Your whole idea of what makes a good reference is completely wrong - if Ryanair's website (and other carriers) aren't used then how can we accurately update airport pages on Wikipedia? The media only reports small numbers of flights. Secondly, please read up on the airport guide WP:Airport to familiarise yourself with the correct referencing procedures. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Futurepilot1999: WP:AIRPORTS is local advice and can not replace (nor does it pretend to) the requirements of Wikipedia core policies which require references. WP:V being the main one here. The problem you have identified is indeed a problem. The problem is that the airport destination tables do not really fit the requirements of Wikipedia, they in reality are way too detailed for an encyclopaedia and very very hard to properly reference - an encyclopaedia is a tertiary resource. There is no encyclopaedic requirement for this sort of detail to be comprehensive. So the option you have is give up on the tables and present the information in a more encyclopaedic way or keep the tables and follow the referencing requirements of Wikipedia as a whole. It would help you to take note of what you are being told, you may not be aware, but this morning you were more or less warned to stop your disruption by a wikipedian of very great mana as we say where I live. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:171.5.69.54

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk:171.5.69.54, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Speak As Muslim (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/171.5.69.54, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Speak As Muslim (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Manchester Airport

It might just be better if you were to educate the IP in how to reference information correctly, rather than deleting information as unreference when an attempt has been made in good faith to provide a reference, even if such reference has not been provided in the correct way. Mjroots (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Austronesia

It is not a place correct, however there is a strong tradition in academic circles of understanding the regional culture in terms of austronesian culture and austronesian languages - cheers JarrahTree 09:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

From your edit at Austronesia

I think there might be a small problem, in that you might not understanding fully how certain aspects of how wikipedia works, in view of your responses to my edits at austronesia.

First as to how prods work.

Also providing a lengthy explanation of your insistence in an edit summary is not the place to place your reasoning.

For a start you left such a long comment there is no where it actually be totally read.

You could help by leaving comments on talk pages, not edit summaries.

Also I do not think you understand that a term like Austronesia - has been utilised by a range of academics from a number of countries over time.

For your explanation suggested deletion reason is a total contradiction of the evidence.

However due to real life issues I am no longer able to continue a possible conversation - so please take up at a talk page - In view of your repeated edit warring history recorded on this talk page - please understand prods and deletes and reverts are a lot less productive compared to actual negotiation and conversation - I have no idea where the ideal location might be but much better you take it up with someone else - as I am now out of the conversation - thanks... JarrahTree 04:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting my edits at PIT Airport

Andrew, the whole point why the Reference columns were implemented on several airport pages were to eliminate the individual references next to each route. Yes, they are good reliable sources...but those are outdated now. They were first put there to reference when they'll be starting. After they begin, they are no longer relevant and can be referenced by the source in the Ref section. There is no need for additional references. You can take a look at other pages such as Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, or Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, or many others and they all follow this same formula. I am going to revert your edits one more time and if you still feel the need to have these outdated sources, then I'd suggest you put them in the Ref section. Sincerely, *AirportUpdater* (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm just weighing in my opinion here, which coincides with WP:V, in that these inline references must not be removed as they are perfect sources. While I understand the ref column linking to the airline search page is being considered a ref, I consider it problematic in that it is also considered WP:OR which also must be avoided. I would encourage you to spark a discussion at WT:AIRPORTS prior to deleting anymore inline references. The references are not doing any harm in being there. Garretka (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

About airport terminal/concourse on CKG airport

Hello Andrewgprout,

Thanks for your edit on Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport

My reason is that not only travelers will read Wikipedia for information they need. Rather, a lot more people from other professions will also look to Wikipedia for extra information. Providing this information enables them to understand terminal and concourse layout, how the airlines in operation are distributed within different terminals, etc. Previously this has caused quite a lot of confusion, leading others to think T2 was composed of two terminals, while in fact, it consists of two halls connected by a skybridge.

Hopefully, this explanation can lessen your doubt and concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guofenghao22 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

AC624

I do not want to get into an edit war with you on this, but your logic makes little sense. It is common for people of North America to refer to NA cities as (city name), (state/province name) such as Los Angeles, California or Toronto, Ontario. I have never heard of people referring to a NA city by its city name, followed by the country name. As for the infobox, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada is definitely shorter than Boone County, Kentucky, United States in this article. My propose is to remove the city name altogether as they are redundant when the airport names clearly identify the cities they are in. C-GAUN (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Air new zealand

Because the fleet size was unchanging since 1 April 2017,so we don't have to check the deadline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planelover19970704 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Planelover19970704: I'm having trouble understanding the above particularly the "so we don't have to check the deadline?" bit - but you changed one of the entries to something not supported by the reference given - that is what I reverted. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I means the source says deadline is as of 31 August.But I have edited it 2 days ago,and you reverted it and said:Not what reference says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planelover19970704 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Planelover19970704: With this edit [[6]] you changed 9 787s to 10 787s despite what the reference said then and still says. Despite the fact that the 10th landed in Auckland last night we need to wait for the reference to change to reflect this change in Wikipedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aramoana1976.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aramoana1976.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Please note that i have provided references for both your reverts. As i see your history you have been blocked several times for war edits. Note you should relax a bit and be as well more polite to people. Thank you Wappy2008 (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wappy2008: as said on your talk page your references do not support the detail you are adding. Reading WP:OR would be a useful endeavour for you.Andrewgprout (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Official website that states flight has connection via Lca Airport from ATH to BEY or opposite way support enough what i am adding. As far airline connects flights/passengers through certain airport automatically has hub at that airport. Aegean website provide clear evidence. Regarding Cairo charter flights are bookable through website i have provided. At booking engine of website is still showing that flights from CAI to PFO has been operated, therefore you cant book it anymore as season has ended. Ref. provided are reliable. Thank you Wappy2008 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wappy2008: what you are saying above barely makes sense, but it is clear you need to read and understand WP:V and what constitutes a reliable reference and when something is original reasearch or a synthesis of the facts. You can do none of this on Wikipedia and what you describe is both original research and synthesis.Andrewgprout (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Spammed film "The Wizard & the Commodore"

Thanks. I'm pretty sure they are a paid editor. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

List of New Zealand films

Sorry about the formatting, I checked and thought it was ok. However, that's just more spam by the same paid editor. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I think we got confused editing at the same time. I have reverted my edit as this is what I was trying to do as well. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I did think it was odd. Thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

== Hi

Hi

Exactly which one is this so I can fix this? I made multiple edits to the Frontier Airlines info on the RSW page because it was incorrect. Plz explain more so I can fix, U said it was removed... I don't see anything that I did removed?... Jetblue17 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Re airport page

In fairness I will also remind you that edit warring isn't acceptable even if you are correct; I've warned the other user as well. Please discuss on the talk page, thanks. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Airport references

I will come here to resolve this. I am not sure why you are adamant on keeping in-text references to routes that have already started in Airport "Airlines and Destinations" infoboxes. I am not a fan of the third column reference either, but it is a decent compromise to having a bunch of in-text references (which make the article look junky and cluttered). You stated that "There is no agreement that this is a good idea." Well, most airport pages have that (outside of the major ones) have it, so I'm not quite sure what you are getting at there. Frankly, if you are insistent on keeping the in-text references on certain routes, then every destination should have one. Why put references on some and not others? Often times, I am removing references for routes that started a year or two ago.

I am not trying to be rude or anything here, I just want to get this resolved. Thank you! NBA2030 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@NBA2030: simply you need to read and understand WP:V - WP:BURDEN is a good place to start. Your comment "(which make the article look junky and cluttered)" is not and can never be an excuse to delete references - it is completely against Wikipedia's core policies - whether you like or hate inline references that is how Wikipedia works and you are unlikely to change this. The third column thing has been tried on a few pages as an experiment - no consensus on this as a sensible solution has been made, nor is it likely I suspect. If you want to put a general reference for all the routes - after the airline name in column one of the table seems like an absolutely appropriate place for such references, but remember that the core policies of WP:RS and WP:OR need to be adheired to - it is not normally enough or particularly useful to add a reference to the opening page of the airline's website or timetable. Nor does the existence of a general reference often replace the need for and nor is it an excuse to delete an existing still valid reference. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: Ok, but the issue here is removing references for routes that have started. Most of the routes in the "airline and destinations" infobox do NOT have references, which would technically be in violation of WP:V - WP:BURDEN. If we are going by those standards, they need to be consistently applied, which means every single route listed needs a reference (which frankly, would be absurd). I do not see any reason why references are needed in an airports "airline and destination" infobox after a route has started. NBA2030 (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@NBA2030: There are two solutions to the problem you posit - 1. is to delete the tables completely because they are not verifiable or verifiable enough to be useful. They in reality are barely encyclopaedic as they are mostly WP:NOTDIRECTORY like in nature. Directories need to be complete (ie WP:PRIMARY in nature where as an encyclopaedia is WP:TERTIARY in nature and needs to be a synthesis of the primary and secondary information. "If you have to continually keep it up-to-date it is probably not encyclopaedic" Likewise if you can only provide Primary references (ie airline timetables) then the detail is also probably not encyclopaedic. But assuming the tables are a good idea in Wikipedia option 2 is to scrupliously follow Wikipedia core policies. The way referencing tends to work is that if something is uncontroversial, (we know Paris is in France) we know (it is not unreasonable to know British Airways flies to New York) then a reference for this is probably not necessary or helpful as no one out there will disagree, now WP:V says that anything and everything must be verifiable - in destination table land and this is following the advice of WP:AIRPORTS I would err on the side of referencing potentially controversial edits as a matter of course and I would leave any references that are already there You have no idea why it was added nor should you care, they can only help, deleating them can only harm the encyclopaedia. Also remember that anything and everything that is not supported by a direct inline reference can be deleted and the only way you have to counter that deletion is to provide a valid WP:RS inline reference. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Andrewgprout. 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)

Editing

You think my edit is spam? I provide a reliable source and add good material. I would edit exactly back my great edits. Because my edits are encyclopedic, helpful, and sourced. 2601:205:C100:627F:197:6998:824:7826 (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@2601:205:C100:627F:197:6998:824:7826: your edit here [7] has no sources and really does not make alot of sense. If the content is significant enough for inclusion it needs to be rewritten in an encyclopaedic style rather than marketing speak. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not give a link where I got material. [8] 2601:205:C100:627F:197:6998:824:7826 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Jan 2018

So why didn't you just make a proper edit instead of just reverting, ongoing flights do not need references and you should know that you are an experience Wikipedia editer. Removing reference is just a cleanup to help make reading easier for editor. 33aircharter

@33aircharter: Can you provide a reason or Wikipedia policy stating that references should be deleted when the material they are supporting is not? My guess is no. I started a discussion at WT:AIRPORTS surrounding my concerns about referencing. Feel free to give it a read. Garretka (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)(Talk page stalker)

@33aircharter: WP:BURDEN

Oceania is a continent

As per the 7 continent policy!

It is the bio geographic term for th region.

Gun jack 5000 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gun jack 5000:What is the 7 continent policy? - The wording you changed is well established and intended to imply exactly what you say "It is the bio geographic term for th(sic) region." Andrewgprout (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a confusion with the "continent" Zealandia? Tayste (edits) 00:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

DHL

Hi Andrew,

I actually work with the DHL flight at CHC airport. They operates every Sunday to a scheduled arrival 0930 so not ad hoc or irregular and are flying to the end of March and may extend. So I have changed it to a seasonal service. Also regarding ref they are difficult to come by and are rarely used on cargo flight entries on wiki airport pages so are usually left in. If DHL decide not to come back next summer I will remove the entry accordingly.CHCBOY (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@CHCBOY: It would be helpful if this [[9]] included a christchurch stop. You have been around long enough to know that it is not what we know but what the references tell us we know that matters on Wikipedia.

Request for Participation at WT: Airports

As you may be aware, there was a recent discussion on the talk page of WP:Airports which prematurely and without consensus resulted in mass changes to airport articles throughout Wikipedia. Before a drastic change like this is put into practice, it is important to have clear consensus, which from my readings as an observer, did not occur. Many of these changes started to occur before any real discussion had taken place, and despite much disagreement from some community members. Disagreement is good -- it's great actually -- without it nothing would ever get done. But it's important that everyone opinions are heard fairly and accurately, and that significant changes like merging the Regional Airline destinations with the Mainline destinations are not done without such consensus. I encourage you, as someone involved in WP:Airports and the original discussion, to voice your opinions and discuss with others about how we should move forward at this point. Positive and constructive conversation is the way to a consensus. I also ask that everyone (myself included) ceases merging or un-merging mainline/regional destinations until a censuses is reached. Please contribute to the conversation here. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

ATR 72

Hello Andrewgprout, I think that i'm confused that when I edit Iran Aseman Airlines flight 3704 says that it has 65 people and when I go into the ATR 72 page it says 66. So which one is the correct one? ScienticGuy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@ScienticGuy: I have no idea which is right but it is probably 65. The reference on the ATR article however says 66 and you can’t change that without finding a different probably more up to date or more reliable reference saying 65. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Paphos Airport

May i know why you have reverted my edits on Paphos airport without explanation? Thanks Wappy2008 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wappy2008: This was explained in the edit summary - so there was an explanation - Logos quite often differ from the established common name of an entity and justifying your change based on a logo is just not going to fly. Of note here is that the Wikipedia page for the airline where the WP:COMMONNAME is by definition established disagrees with you. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: According to moves of airlines all name has been completely changed on social media, on their website, their own livery as well as their call sign. Therefore Tus Air is flying under new name and using Tus Airways no more. Of the note what is written in WP:COMMONNAME

Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above.

Therefore TUS AIR is most commonly used name of the airline, due to that Tus Air should be in use. Wappy2008 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wappy2008: using google as a rule of thumb "tus air" = 33,400 results. "tus airways" = 170,000 results no real argument you can yet make regarding "tus air" and WP:COMMONNAME

@Andrewgprout: I don't know at what Google you looking at but record that shows on English Google: About 40,500,000 results (0.41 seconds) for TUS AIR and About 411,000 results (0.37 seconds) for Tus Airways - just for your records. I think difference in amount proving a lot. Wappy2008 (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wappy2008: All you are effectively doing in your search is counting the times the word air or airways appear in google - the " " marks are important to the search and create the search as a phrase which is what you actually want to count Andrewgprout (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Air New Zealand destinations

Thanks for your contribution to Air New Zealand destinations. Unfortunately, I had to revert it. The same change had previously been made by an IP user, and was reverted per WP:BRD. The next step if there is a content dispute, is to go to the article talk page, and discuss it there. Making the same change again a few hours later is not helpful; use the Talk page to discuss your concerns instead. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: while I did misinterpret the starting point of this revert cycle I'm not sure how BRD applies here, there are many times on Wikipedia where a revert is reverted by another in support of another editors edit particularly when that editor had taken the initiative to explain and canvas opinion on a talk page. The argument being made to support your edit is simplistic at best, however the result is of little consequence beyond the pedantic. The real question here is the format of the destination pages and indeed their very existence in an encyclopaedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

YYC

I was going to say something about the reversion to YYC, given that there is already a reference column there, but it'd just be beating a dead horse based on what I see on this talk page. Your issue is with the acceptability of the airline's timetable as a reference, as opposed to one singular destination. Requiring me to cite specific cities defeats the purpose of the global reference for a given airline. -- Acefitt 23:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Acefitt: The reference in the reference column does not preclude the need for a specific reference for any piece of added information. That is the big danger in such general meaningless references. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a single destination is properly sourced by your definition, so why have you not placed {{fv}} after every single city listed in the table aside from Denver, or you're just going to continue to pick and choose some arbitrary time after which every single city needs to be singularly cited? Your argument makes zero sense and holds no water in terms of consistency. -- Acefitt 02:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Acefitt: Constistency is not a goal in Wikipedia - WP:BURDEN is a core principle.

Burden's on me? Yeah. There's a source. Prove to me that the source used for every other seasonal destination is not OR. I have provided a source deemed not OR elsewhere. Consistency not being a goal favours my argument and not yours, as it's now a complete crapshoot. -- Acefitt 03:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy International Airport

The Operation section has been tagged for copyediting for several months, and the article was among the oldest in the backlog. The Guild of Copy Editors (of whom I'm a coordinator) is conducting its bimonthly backlog-reduction drive; I—and other copyeditors—remove the tag from a backlog article to help prevent two copyeditors from working on the same article. We're an honorable lot; please remember that you don't own the page. Miniapolis 19:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Thank you for your explanation - I still think it would be better if you removed the tag after the copyediting - as it is impossible to tell what motives you had in doing so by your edit summary. There must be a more appropriate way to prevent double up editing if indeed that is a problem. And where did I indicate I owned the page? I'm a little confused by that comment. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

With the edit summary "Rmv tag before copyedit", I declared my intention to copyedit the section. WP:DEADLINE. Since you reverted that edit minutes later (while I was carefully copyediting the section), it was pretty obvious that you were watching the page—hence the reference to WP:AGF in my ES for the copyedit. Miniapolis 20:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Miniapolis:Whatever - not sure how watching a page equals owning it. And I still have serious concerns about the removal of tags before the copyedit. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Tenerife Airport Disaster

No offense, but I was just trying to specify the info box. If I do decide to edit it again, I’ll just say it was pilot error on the KLM plane ONLY as the airline did accept responsibility for the collision. Maybe you could give me an idea of what to say. Or I’ll just keep the box the same. Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tigerdude9: It is my opinion that it is normally not particularly helpful to go into too much detail in the summary field - pilot error is a very blunt description covering a whole range of causes (you never seem to see mechanical failure in the same blunt way pilot error is often used) - it is better to discuss the normally rather complex sequence of events leading to the accident in the body of the article and simply leave the summary as a summary of the accident in as few words as possible. In this case "Runway collision" is ample. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Tampa International Airport

I am getting a little concern with this article. This particular IP continues to remove references as in this edit: [10] in which WN has launched service seasonal service to DTW and OMA. There was a also a "reference improve" tag to the section as it needed more citations for verification but since references keep getting removed, I have deleted the tag as it seems useless now. Can you take a look? Thanks. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Malacca International Airport

I am sorry, why did you move Melaka International Airport's page into Malacca International Airport page just because it is English wikipedia? Have you read the news that saying Melaka state government announced that they wanted us to use "Melaka" instead of "Malacca" in any languange? And they even specifically mentioned English, as English was formerly use Malacca not Melaka. They wanted all of media to stop write "Malacca" in their writings, but rather they want us to use "Melaka". AirEnthusiast (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@AirEnthusiast: WP:COMMONNAME is probably the best place to start Andrewgprout (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits

You appear to have a long history of making unconstructive edits. Your understanding of the Wikipedia policies appears to be slightly misguided. The references that you insist are listed on the Glasgow Airport page are not neessary and only clutter the information provided. Please refrain from reverting edits made to correct this. Pf05268727 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pf05268727: Can you please explain to me how references are not necessary - have you read WP:BURDEN which is a core Wikipedia policy and not negotiable. References are never "NOT ever" considered clutter on Wikipedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout I suggest you read WP:OVERCITE. You have added a reference for KLM, which has been on the Glasgow Airport page for years without a reference as it does not need one! It is by no means necessary. By your logic, every destination listed should be referenced. The Frankfurt route is is also well known and by no means negotiable so a reference is not required there either. Pf05268727 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

: @Pf05268727: You can only overcite something if it is cited in the first place. And to quote from WP:OVERCITE "Wikipedia requires material to be verifiable. This means being able to add some form of inline citations to support anything added to an article, and actually adding a citation for anything challenged or likely to be challenged." The reference has been there for some time (it was reinstated by me NOT created by me) how do you know that this citation has not been challenged? It is not a valid thing to go about deleting references because of some misconstrued tidiness. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout Unfortunately you seem to be proving my point further. Take notice of "anything challenged or likely to be challenged". No one is going to challenge that KLM serve Amsterdam from Glasgow! My point is, why don't you then require a reference for all the routes listed? Also, the reference has not been there that long! Looking back through your talk page suggests this is something you do often - why? Pf05268727 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Air New Zealand Flight 901

Ok, I shouldn’t have reverted. I should have just copied and pasted stuff from the old version into the current version. I’ll do that instead next time. Sorry about that. However, articles on plane clashes that have no survivors usually have an “(all)”. I do respect your opinion, but please respect mine as well.Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert edit Norfolk Island Airport

You reverted my edit for charter flights from Auckland to Norfolk Island Airport. I do not want to be involved in an edit war, however these flights were marked as 'charter' not 'scheduled' as per the reference directly from airchathams.co.nz I will be reverting this inclusion unless you can give a true reason why they should not be included

@Atnelet: WP:AIRPORTS content says "Do not include ad-hoc, irregular, or private charter services" - Wikipedia is also WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOT DIRECTORY both of these principles are designed to keep the content of the encyclopedia encyclopaedic, It is clear that something you add and then have to remove in a couple of weeks because it has finished is Directory type information. Ironically the interest Chathams is showing in Norfolk routes is almost certainly encyclopaedic. If you write a couple of sentences (properly referenced) about Air NZ pulling out, the failed local airline and how the current charters may lead to a more significant scheduled service I'm sure no-one will revert. The destinations table with raw unsynthesised data is not the place to present this information. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Airport destination references

Hello Andrewgprout,

You wrote: "WP:BURDEN applies everywhere. If you are not going to reference it it should be removed."

If that were the case with airport destination lists, then most if not all of them on airport articles would need to be removed, as unless you are able to change the convention on the very page that defines the rules for airport pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content, your points are invalid.

You interpretation on this goes against the agreed rules and counts as disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.115.199.217 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@86.115.199.217: exactly! - WP:BURDEN is core Wikipedia policy that is not negotiable. Basically you reference it or it can be removed it is that simple. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: I notice this issue has been raised on your page earlier (Unconstructive edits, also telling that you did not give a response to the latest message). Your actions are not coherent - you can't demand something only for new edits while simultaneously ignoring all of the pre-existing, conflicting (according to you) information. This also raises a very interesting question - for example on Heathrow's page there are no references and according to your stance all of the unreferenced lists should be removed completely. Well, why don't act according to your words and delete the lists? Or are you only enforcing this rule on smaller airports as perhaps the obstruction on the pages of major airports is too significant to overcome? You cannot go and start your own procedures, you must first bring whatever matters you see up for discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports and reach a consensus before making contentious and arbitrary edits on individual articles. 86.115.199.217 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@86.115.199.217: - WP:BURDEN is core Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports is local advice and cannot replace (nor does it conflict with) WP:V - if anything it is you that is being disruptive by deleting references please do not do that - you are likely to be banned from editing as it is considered vandalism. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrew continues to vandalize airport articles. Please see El Alto International Airport for his most recent editing war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.146.73 (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Mealer2015

Recently, this user continue to prematurely remove dates for new services that are starting June 7, 2018. I reverted him saying that it is not June 7th yet but he reverted me stating that it doesn’t matter, services are starting this week. Can you please take a look? 97.85.118.142 (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have an issue, tell it to me directly. Why does it matter when they are removed as I only do them within a few days of it starting? Mealer2015 (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk page blanking

Did you remove talk page comments? While it is sometimes acceptable (in cases of the addition of blatant abuse, revealing of private info or garbled nonsense) to remove messages from talk pages, generally speaking as a matter of courtesy and assumption of good faith, we should not delete another editor’s comments from a talk page. In cases where the talk page is being used as a forum for extended discussion not related to article improvement, closing the discussion using ‘’hat and hab’’ templates is preferred. Edaham (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Edaham: Did I? - a diff would be useful? Andrewgprout (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think so, possibly. It doesn’t matter. I can’t fully remember but it might have been related to a recent ani. Maybe I got the wrong person. Happy editing and a have a nice weekend. ～···

Incheon International Airport

In order to remove the citation needed tag I added a citation. While I specifically stated that the site does not allow direct linking, the citation is useful as I give the site, the name of the article, and the language the site is given; all necessary information for finding the information on the site and a slew of other useful information on this project and others. Why did you rollback not only that edit but four other unrelated edits in that section? ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Allegiant In Milwaukee

    Hello, I have written this to inform you about my "Allegiant In Milwaukee" dispute.  There are many reasons to believe that AZA, SFB, and PGD, are seasonal services.  I would recommend you check the sources given and actually do a deep dive before starting an online dispute.  This would show you that the reference "allegiant.com" would show you that these services are actually seasonal!  If you do believe that this route is seasonal, and you just believe the references need to be changed, there is no reference that CLEARLY states that they are seasonal. "allegiant.com" would be the best reference after that.  If you do believe that "allegiant.com" is not a good source, please go find one yourself.  If you are ever in this situation again, please do a deep dive as I did say.  I would like to say, if this did cause you hard feelings, that was never intended. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattAviation (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC) 

Your reversion on 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident

Hello! I see that you reverted three of my edits on 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident, citing that they were unexplained. I explained the reason behind each edit in their edit summary, including links to respective policies and template descriptions. What portion of the edit(s) did you find a problem with? --HunterM267 ^talk 20:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Hello, once a service starts the references can be removed, it is not needed then. This has been done many times across the Wikipedia Airport pages. If you want references for everything, and on every airport page, then go ahead, if you don't I will keep on removing it. And don't call me out of step when you have been blocked from editing for periods of time. Lets say we are both out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattAviation (talk • contribs) 22:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Really?

Re: You know very very well that the burden to support your edits with sensible secondary references rests on YOU - not anyone else. If you cannot do such a simple thing you should not be editing.

And if you cannot stop selectively enforcing the "rules", you shouldn't be editing either. As I and others have pointed out, if we are going to take a hypertechnical view of WP:BURDEN, every single destination on every table needs a citation. Until you do that, you are being a hypocrite. I wasn't able to add a citation there and then because I was on my mobile phone and it is difficult to edit on there. I figured I'd just fix what I could now and wait to add the citations until I got to an actual computer. You were more than capable of fixing the "issue" and yet, you chose not to and simply reverted without adding anything constructive (when you knew darn well Sun Country added Nashville). I got a bit snarky because I'm sick of your condescending attitude towards users. Knock it off. NBA2030 (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@NBA2030: we have had this discussion before and note I did not say then or ever what you say I say. And I am unapologetic for my stance.....

copied from above

@NBA2030: There are two solutions to the problem you posit - 1. is to delete the tables completely because they are not verifiable or verifiable enough to be useful. They in reality are barely encyclopaedic as they are mostly WP:NOTDIRECTORY like in nature. Directories need to be complete (ie WP:PRIMARY in nature where as an encyclopaedia is WP:TERTIARY in nature and needs to be a synthesis of the primary and secondary information. "If you have to continually keep it up-to-date it is probably not encyclopaedic" Likewise if you can only provide Primary references (ie airline timetables) then the detail is also probably not encyclopaedic. But assuming the tables are a good idea in Wikipedia option 2 is to scrupliously follow Wikipedia core policies. The way referencing tends to work is that if something is uncontroversial, (we know Paris is in France) we know (it is not unreasonable to know British Airways flies to New York) then a reference for this is probably not necessary or helpful as no one out there will disagree, now WP:V says that anything and everything must be verifiable - in destination table land and this is following the advice of WP:AIRPORTS I would err on the side of referencing potentially controversial edits as a matter of course and I would leave any references that are already there You have no idea why it was added nor should you care, they can only help, deleating them can only harm the encyclopaedia. Also remember that anything and everything that is not supported by a direct inline reference can be deleted and the only way you have to counter that deletion is to provide a valid WP:RS inline reference. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Andrewgprout (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Qantas JFK

Hi Andrew, I noticed that there seems to be a bit of confusion regarding Qantas's listing in the JFK page.

For the time being, I have omitted both BNE and SYD and redirected viewers to a note below the table. However, it is not true that the B747 aircraft from JFK-LAX continues to SYD. LAX-SYD is consistently scheduled on the A380 and has been for years. The A380 never flies JFK-LAX. You are right that the flight number QF12 is in fact JFK-LAX-SYD, but per Wikipedia policy, a destination must have the same flight number & same aircraft on all segments to be listed in the destinations table. Under this, neither BNE nor SYD should be listed.

I have historically included BNE since psychologically speaking, same aircraft routes are much more seamless than same flight number routes. There are cases where LAX-SYD takes off before a delayed JFK-LAX lands. However, a delay in JFK-LAX always affects the LAX-BNE flight.

Additionally, JFK-LAX-BNE will become B789 on September 1, per [[11]]. Irehdna (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Irehdna: I can't fault you on the accuracy of your solution. I'm not sure I like the note but it does sort of work. I think my view is that I would probably prefer the whole entry not to be there but that has been tried before and failed. If I had to choose flight number or aeroplane as the entry to choose I would on balance choose flight number but its not an overwhelming preference. In dealing with entries like this we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory and much of the detail like this is very very directory like. The encyclopedic need being covered by these tables is that the airport page in question should present an idea of the connections to and from the airport, there is no requirement for these to be particularly and pedantically comprehensive or up-to-date, however JFKs only link with Australia is probably important in this regard which suggests why despite its scope problems it has been retained so far. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Airport References and Other Things

So, when it comes to airport charts, once a route starts, the reference can be removed unless it is not at an airport chart with side references. If it has side references, the reference can be removed as the reference for that route can go to the side reference. Also, I would not recommend calling me "out of line" and saying that I can get blocked for my actions. I have seen through your talk page that you have been blocked multiple times. Maybe we are both out of line! Well anyway, this situation that I and you are in has happened multiple times as I can see. I shall not let it bother me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattAviation (talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@MattAviation: - I have not been blocked multiple times that is simply not true and I expect a retraction and apology forthwith. And where did you get the idea that once a route has started you can remove the reference that is just simply not true - most of what you have said above is just made up. As I have already said please read and truly understand WP:V and in particular WP:BURDEN and understanding of the tertiary nature of Wikipedia the WP:Primary nature of Timetable references. Put simply often the general timetable (it does not matter whether it is explicitly referenced or not) can not be used to support detail in these tables - often because the timetables are not really designed to explicitly point such detail out and deriving such information is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. What you are striving for is WP:SECONDARY references for detail in these tables. And once such references are applied to a route there is no mechanism to delete them except if the detail ceases to exist.Andrewgprout (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

American to Glasgow

Please note to avoid any confusion that the addition of an ending date for AA's flights to Glasgow by someone is correct. The service has been seasonal for a while and now will be cancelled entirely which is clearly stated in the chart on the right in the given official source as seasonal service which is being removed from the schedule. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.23.207 (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Your reverts to American Airlines

Hello,

I noticed that you reverted my edits on American Airlines where I explained that planes without seat-back TVs have overhead TVs. It is not promotional and goes well with the previous sentence explaining seat-back TVs. You also reverted my edit where I said that the 737-800s had seat-back TVs. I just flew yesterday on an AA 737-800 and it had seat-back TVs. Please give reasoning into why you reverted. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Mostly because such talk is really boring and not really encyclopaedic. You need to have a reference for it as well. Your username leads people to think what you write on a page bearing the same name might be more promotional in nature than perhaps you mean it to be. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Navaids in aerodrome articles

Sincere thanks for supporting my case in Mfuwe Airport! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Blown out of plane

Hi there. I notice you reverted my correction of an event that was altered to state that a person was blown out of a plane rather than sucked. You state that in decompression it's definitely sucked. While it's a common myth that you get sucked out of a plane, this isn't what is happening, especially in decompression. Decompression of a plane results in the high pressure inside the plane seeking to evacuate by any means possible, i.e. through the window. There is no external force pulling the air out, but purely the higher pressure inside escaping. Hence blown rather than sucked.

Yes sucked is what is commonly used in news sources, but it's totally inaccurate (and technically in physics there is no such thing as suction it's a completely made up term that implies something other than what is actually happening.) High pressure moves to low pressure by virtue of the force exerted by the high pressure, the low pressure has no say or operation in this. This is how the physics works. Canterbury Tail talk 14:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: mmmmm, I think you are probably being a bit pedantic about this Wikipedia is not the place for extremely technical definitions. The difference between blow and suck is about where the energy or the causing event is coming from. In a decompression the cause is in the direction you are travelling to - ie sucked. Think of straws, and the difference between implosion and explosion if that helps. This is certainly the common interpretation of the difference. In this case there is some indication that the flight attendant actually blocked the growing hole or was sucked out in the early stages of the incident which if confirmed would further support my sucked hypothesis. Anyway the official report uses the word "swept" possibly to avoid such a discussion as we are having here - i would be entirely happy with this word in this instance. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ejected is also commonly used so that's a fairly neutral term. Swept would also be fine. I know sucked is what is used in newspapers, but it drives all us us in aviation insane. Just like every accident involving a light aircraft seems to involve a Cessna regardless of make. Canterbury Tail talk 19:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: [12] 1.3 with object and adverbial of direction Draw in a specified direction by creating a vacuum.

‘he was sucked under the surface of the river’ - just say'n. English is not a precise tool. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes but suction implies pulling which is not the force that is happening here. Scientists have been fighting back for years (to no seeming avail) against such incorrectness. Popular parlance is no substitute for accuracy and remember we are an encyclopaedia. It's not a purely technical thing, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening that appears to have settled into popular consciousness and is proving difficult to shift. It's like saying things fall to the ground because air pressure pushes them down not the gravity of the planet pulling it. It leads people believing forces are being exerted in a manner that is actually the opposite of what is happening, it's a fundamental science issue that once you draw the forces makes it clear that that's not what's happening as people think there is a pulling force when in fact it's a pushing force going on here in an airplane. This is why educational institutions and scientific organisations trying to educate the public against incorrect scientific belief and inaccuracy is so difficult. I'm not going to fight on it however in the spirit of BRD, I agree that it's the belief of the majority of the population and what news sources state (though not actual reports on incidents etc.) Canterbury Tail talk 11:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverting changes to King Fahd International Airport

I recently made changes to passenger routes for King Fahd International Airport. These changes are based on search made using OAG's Flight Tools. OAG is a leading schedules provider. All additions, removals, and amendments are based on this source. You objected to removing referenced material. However, what I removed are old references which either are non-valid according to the recent search I made on OAG, or they just speak about the start of the service but not its continuity. Continuity is verified through the OAG tools. Hence, all the material that I amended goes back to the same source. Outdated references are superseded by such source. If we were to keep all references on the route table, it will become full of references, many of which may not valid. You have to understand how the airline industry works, as I understand it as a professional, in order to appreciate what I'm saying and doing. I hope you bring back my edits for the benefit of all those who want accurate information about the airport's operations. Imdashti (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

MilborneOne just talked about callsigns to me. They have to be uppercase as most pages have them. It is really neccesary as shown. If you continue this disruptive editing, you will be blocked soon.

@71.198.2.72: Please read MOS:ALLCAPS and WP:AGF. And I can not find any evidence user MilborneOne has such a view, there is no answer to your question on his talk page. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Callsigns have always been shown as upper case in wikipedia to reflect usage by the reliable sources like the FAA and Eurocontrol. So the IP is not doing any wrong as I see it. I have removed the warning above as it is clearly not appropriate to warn an experience editor on something that probably just needs discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: thanks for your reply. I'm unsure why MOS:ALLCAPS should not apply here. While WP:PRIMARY sources list such callsigns as uppercase, verifiability is about content not style. I would be more interested in what secondary references say. I cannot see what is being gained by making the entry (eg. SPEEDBIRD vs Speedbird, SPRINGBOK vs Springbok), entries which is much harder to read thanks  :-) Andrewgprout (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with you questioning the format, but if it was to change it would be nearly all airline articles that would have to be amended, which is just over 4000 at the moment, so I would suggest it would have to be raised at the airline project to see what others think, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tenerife Aiport Disaster

I was just trying to make the summary more specific as "runway collision" doesn't sound specific enough. However, why did you say "detailed cause of appropriate for summary?" Did you want me to give a better edit summary? Or did you mean to say "detailed cause of inappropriate for summary?" If it was inappropriate, then I apologize. Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Destinations from Ercan

Hello @Andrewgprout: do you know where to find Freebird destination from Ercan? Been searching but couldn't find anything. I do know Stuttgart, Leipzig, Stockholm, Brussels and Tallinn are among them (having seen those flights IRL). Thanks. André Devecserii (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Andrewgprout. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Andrewgprout. 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)

DFW Seasonal from MKE

Hello, im MattAviation.

I do understand why you would want to remove my change on American Eagle and why it would need a source. The source is right on the side area for both airports, the flight schedules. I can put the flight schedules or a booking search as the source for this change if that would makes things better.

Thank you, MattAviation — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattAviation (talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

RE: Air Newzeland

Hey A, I got your post and yes it is very complicated even I struggled with the final report which i found here ---> https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19791128-0

Is this a trusted source? As it does contain the final report along with other things.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: yes the original report was somewhat contradicted by the report of the Royal Commission, which was then contested in the courts all the way to the Privy Council. This is well covered in the article. I think we need to be careful to not overburden the summary field in the infobox with detail when it is not even clear that it is appropriate to include a cause within the info box summary at all. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

good point, ha so complicated, you shouldve seen the final report pdf document. all i could get was there was a whiteout at the time of the accident. i.e inclement weather. I dont know haha. ill leave that to the proper experts. to risky

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Gatwick Airport

Hi, I've reverted your reversion on Gatwick Airport, as I feel the drone incident is notable under WP:DEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE and, though I haven't added multiple sources to the article, WP:DIVERSE. If an incident which can shut down the UK's second busiest airport for currently nearly a whole day isn't notable, I don't know what is. Also, I must query your use of WP:NOTNEWS - there are much smaller incidents which manage to make Portal:Current_events. Osarius - Want a chat? 16:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Notification on discussion regarding flags in airline alliance tables

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I have begun a discussion regardings flags in airline infobox tables for airline alliances here. That way you can contribute to the discussion.

Thanks, --Ncchild (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Allahabad Airport

Hello there. What is your opinion on this content on the article? It reads more like a chronology and the user has vouched on their talk page to edit war to keep re-instating the same content. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 04:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration?

Hey Andy, now I know some other users dislike my Editing. I was wondering if we could work together on some summary pages on airliner accidents as some are very long.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a list of long over-detailed summaries:

• Air India Flight 855
• Copa Airlines Flight 201
• Garuda Indonesia Flight 200

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Dallas/Fort Worth

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 notice boards.
• 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, you may be blocked from editing. There is nothing in WP:V or WP:BURDEN that prevents having a side citation in this case. The fact is literally right there. Stop it. Randstrand (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

since when is adding a reference disruptive I wonder.Andrewgprout (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

EasyJet MAN-SXF

Hello, would you say this is a reliable secondary reference for EasyJet flights from MAN to SXF being moved to TXL? https://airportrumours.blogspot.com/2019/02/easyjet-changes.html

MAN-SXF is also still not bookable after 30 March where it will start flights to TXL after this date (and I know for a fact that the route is 100% moving to TXL) --MKY661 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@MKY661: the "rumour" word in the title and the fact that this appears to be complied as a self published blog makes the source questionable. Personally I wouldn't tie yourself up in knots keeping the tables accurate and up-to-date - Wikipedia is not a directory and up-to-dateness is what directories do. Encyclopaedias on the other hand summarise and distill information at a more digested tertiary level. So my advice would be wait till it is obvious from the timetable that TXL is served and change it then. There is no hurry best just to chill. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Cham?

I'm sorry but could you elaborate what you mean by that please? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: simply a spelling mistake from writing on an iPad - they are dangerous things to edit on. The full message should have been something like".....Convention suggests you discuss info box image changes before making them on aviation pages" Aircraft images have proved often to be quite contentious and it is mostly best to leave the existing image alone without a very very good reason to make a change. While you are absolutely allowed to be bold even here, I think you need to be very very careful not to be seen to be making changes for changes sake. Your image (which has at least the apperance of being suspect copyright wise) is not in anyway an improvement on the longstanding one which has absolutely unquestionable copyright clearance. While I know you are not trying to be disruptive, there are aspects of your editing that are, I do take note of the note about your autism, but that can not and will not make a difference to how you are treated here, this is the big bad world that often does not make allowances for such things. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits Phnom Penh International Airport

Hey, this user Vicheasambath won't stop continually adding this unsourced and mostly false content. Do you know the right place to report this user to admins? Ajf773 (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ajf773: I have reported him to the edit warring noticeboard [[13]]. We will see what happens there. I would just leave it till someone else sorts it out at the moment - we need to be very careful of edit warring ourselves. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Saudia 163

You changed the edit on saudia 163 even though it was good. Why Emojibop (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Emojibop: assuming you are talking about [[14]] - because there is very little evidence of any pilot error here. The summary by definition is a summary and this was an "in flight fire"Andrewgprout (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Insulting my intelligence

I am sorry but who on earth makes a comment like this: 'your autism is getting in the way of sensible editing'. Do you know how much this offends me. You don't have it. You don't know what it is like to have it. I cannot believe i've recieved a comment like that on wikipedia. I came here as I thought everyone was somewhat respectful of others. I undid your edit as Jeff had a point. What you want get rid of the time on the Atlas air 3591 image I uploaded? I am being reliable and for you to straight out insult me by saying my disability is effecting sensible edting screw you. To say my edits are not sensible makes me sick. I spend hours getting images and doing my research. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

So you’re gonna ignore me eh? Well I’ll report you to an admin if you’re gonna be like that. You really do disgust me. I’ve suffered enough bulling back in college and high school. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:OrbitalEnd48401 has raised this issue on my Talk Page as they have been upset by your comments. If you could take time to explain what he is doing wrong it might help, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: I have held off answering you as I wanted to make what I say clear and obvious so that you have a better chance of understanding. I only mentioned your autism because you have declared this on your talk page I would not normally have brought this up - while I respect this declaration and to some degree understand your situation it does not absolve you of behaving and contributing in a positive manner.

Nothing I said questions your intelligence as you infer the fact that you read this into the statement I made goes to supports my "getting in the way" statement somewhat. I am afraid that I do genuinely believe that your autim is affecting your ability to participate here effecively. However I want to make clear that nothing I have said now or in the past should question your good faith, as I have said before I know you are trying to contribute positively to the encyclopaedia however the practicality of that aim is not always being met.

Contributing to Wikipedia is not compulsory - this means I should be able to take the time I need to answer you properly without you assuming I am ignoring you (the last 24 hours around here have been rather traumatic), for you it means that it is possible that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for you to be. But note that is not what I am suggesting - but it is something you could decide.

It is unfortunate that you feel bullied here, from what I can see I have seen alot of helpful people trying to point you in a positive direction but very little acknowledgment of this in your edits, You may take one tangential fact from something someone says and then blindly apply it to multiple pages but the big picture you are not getting, you need to slow down and work out for yourself why something on wikipedia might be like it is, or quetion what does this detail have anything directly to do with the subject of the article, and realise that nothing here is black and white, just about everything is on a continum and finding an acceptable place on that continum is the key.

And just a note - on Wikipedia administrators are editors with some extra powers and tools that make Wikipedia work - they are not and must not be considered authority figures. And also there is no natural right not to be offended in this world - in trying to enforce such a situation there would be (very hungry) dragons so if you feel offended, feel free, but I'm not going to stop saying what I believe.

Hope this helps - Andrewgprout (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Groundings

Really not getting your mass edit war style reverts by going after every single edit I did and citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The info is very relevant to the fleets on the airlines who grounded them as part of the 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY is clearly not against that. Is it simply unhappiness that the article survived the AfD that you were very against it? --Bohbye (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bohbye: Yeah right. Look at how many people had deleted this detail already before me and think about that for a nanosecond. Understanding what is or isn’t encyclopaedic is an important skill, and this detail which will inevitably be temporary is not encyclopaedic. Andrewgprout (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: That's your biased opinion based on the AfD and your behavior, and following around to revert edits by another editor attempting to hide WP:3RR is still violating WP:EDITWAR. --Bohbye (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bohbye: I have no idea what you are talking about.Andrewgprout (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

CRM

I didn't add pilot error, I am citing CRM as noted in A) the final report. Having just a vague and unexplained sentance in the summary is not something viewers of wikipeida want. Nothing to detailed or to explained. I am not happy with Jet not becuase he undid my edit of occupants and you did the same. Look, you take the piss out of my autisim, but let me make this striaght to you in particular. If i was so incompentent being here, if it as me undoing someones edit buddy, i wouldnt undo the whole thing, you go rid of the occupants again. I aint talking to you again. Id rather talk to Jet honestly, at least his comments are not rude or offensive. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

As a side note, being disruptive what a joke, I aint touching pilot error anymore, even though I side that it was. I am adding CRM as firstly, the argument was about PE not CRM. Get your facts right before you start running your mouth off at me. I'm sorry but you infuriate me with you nasty comments. I wont forget that comment from the Lion air edit. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: Contrary to what you state above - which part of this [edit] did you not add Pilot Error? Andrewgprout (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop getting in my way it’s so frustrating, if you haven’t read my other messages I have changed sides as the final report is worded differently compared to here. The lack of CRM is why the aircraft crashed, had their of been CRM present the crew would’ve realised the mistake. Their done. Once jet comes back me and him will discuss the findings. Sorry but I don’t feel like talking to you after the crap you’ve said to me. Along the fact you were not really part of the ‘edit war’ in which you so claim it to be. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

RE: ET 409

Did more digging and found the FDR release by the NTSB and it shows the plane stalled so after compiling that and the final report here is my conclusion for the summary “stalled shortly after take-off due to pilot error”. If you are still not happy with that despite me taking hours of research then I’ll make another discussion about it elsewhere to bring a formal conclusion. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Larnaca Airport

Please stop posting warning messages on my page especially if you don't post on other users that being involved. As you know adding of column is nothing unusual. I have added because it was applied to all pages across USA, Canada and already some European airports and including Middle East airports as well. It is very silly that you keep reverting my edits but you have done nothing about other pages that include column, just saying. Wappy2008 (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wappy2008: Simply you were edit warring - the notices are valid. The third column is controversial, where they have survived is where they contain general timetable references only - the same references that WP:AIRPORTS suggests strongly should normally be implied unless there is a reason to question such detail, so not much is being gained by displaying them (also the placement is not ideal in my view). The references in question here are specific references for specific detail you are not adding general references here don't banish them to the wasteland of a third column - it is not being very useful - such specific references must be adjacent to the fact being supported otherwise how do you know what reference applies to which fact. If you have a general reference it can quite sensibly be accomodated in column 1. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: Whats wrong with Azur flights? Vnukovo flight is scheduled flight sold on-line on the official website. And the rest of charter flight are as any other charter flights with proper source this time. Wappy2008 (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Air India 185

How is it unconstructive? Mainly what’s wrong having the same layout? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A strict adherance to a specific layout risks a formulaic response to all situations, no matter what a situation calls for. Wikipedia is consiously very unprescriptive in the way it suggests things are done, this often means different solutions or styles are applied to potentially similar situations. So this is more by design rather than error. Moreover a variety of responses creates a more readable and interesting encyclopaedia from a reader point of view.

The most important principle here is that often it is best just to leave a piece of text or an image as it is. Many of you edits fit into the category of not much being gained by the change. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Andrewgprout, Thanks for you recent contributions. I agree with your accusation at ANI today. What are your thoughts about starting a sock puppet investigation? I've started a couple of them before and am some what familiar with the process. - Samf4u (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Samf4u: I'm unsure what to do to be honest. This certainly is slightly more perplexing than some random drive by troll, the similarity in user name context, the timings and most importantly the suggestive faux leading conversation rang all of my alarm bells (alarm bells that have proved to be correctly sensitive to sockpuppetry in the past and have OE written all over them in my opinion). Whether any confirmation beyond my suspicions is possible is questionable, there is very little user behaviour comparison available as this didn't actually involve any content editing. I would expect different ISPs were used, or possibly proxies, so it is unlikely there would be a simple IP tieup, however I would love to know if the IPs used were both from Southern England. DoRD, who I see is a check user, commented on my accusation and did not see any reason my accusation was correct - I have to respect that view. Perhaps we should leave it at that. All that said if you do want to lodge a sockpuppet investigation I would support you with any details and moral support I can provide. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight. Every time I read the face of the moon's edit summary's my gut tells me it's OE also. Understand about Southern England, I ran his IP address too. I really want to start an investigation but I don't believe that face of moon's edits are disruptive enough to warrant one. That combined with DoRD comments have persuaded me drop the matter and move on. I greatly appreciate your support. - Samf4u (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Impersonator

@Andrewgprout: I need your help, look I know I have an issue with dates about reliability but forget that, someone goddamn scum bag is impersonation me on here and I need your help. I know this isn't me as that idiot messed up bringing up my name in an edit and he didnt even realise theres a thing called an IP address. Is there anything you can do? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Perth Airport

@Andrewgprout: Self-evident means axiomatic, not that it isn’t worth being said, nor that it is obvious. Do you have any other objections to what I added that warrants it’s deletion? Betterkeks (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe self evident to you but this is not really appropriate for the lead. Also the reference has been hijacked by the addition. And it really does not add anything to the understanding of the article.Andrewgprout (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: May I please ask that we forget about the “self-evident” bit? It’s not in the article, just in the change history.

The addition you reverted made the context of that policy obvious, and therefore very much adds to the article; without the addition that context is not obvious. Putting pro’s in the lead without also putting the matching con’s next or below it is not balanced, and in reality just makes the article incomplete. Maybe these two paragraphs could be in their own section further down?

Happy to put reference mid-sentence to make clear which bit it supports. Betterkeks (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Betterkeks: Although I still see your addition as editorialising most of my immediate disquiet is because this is in the lead. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Pilot errir

Please reply

Why did you change it Emojibop17 (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Emojibop17: We do not need every incident listed here, and in this case it is unclear why you added it.Andrewgprout (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Reminder that WP:CIVIL is important

Reminder that WP:CIVIL is important. I did state in my edit summary [15] to discuss the matter in the article talkpage and later you reverted me. I will not respond to this [16] or commentary such as "user who refuses to discuss and simply deletes warnings on talk page does not deserve the respect of waiting for a reply" [17]. Respect is reciprocal and not an entitlement that goes one way. You could have opened a thread, instead you flooded my talkpage with nonsense and now are going off on your own tangent. So be it. Every editor owns their own rapport.Resnjari (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

List of islands in the Pacific Ocean

Why did you apparently delete my earlier edit today in which I added a large number of PNG islands? Roundtheworld (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Roundtheworld: I didn't delete the entries on purpose and I'm a little at a loss to explain how it happened. I suspect the initial of my three edits this morning was not against the most up-to-date version of the article. I can only appologise for that, It may be better for you to put it back to how you want it, as I'm still a little confused. Thanks Andrewgprout (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Having so many islands from one country in such a list was not a good idea anyway. I am now working on List of islands of Papua New Guinea instead and will limit the Pacific Islands list to the main PNG islands. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

What is encyclopaedic

You removed my edits regarding Southwest's Newark to Orlando route. I had changed the destinations to reflect that it is currently only running on Saturdays and more importantly that it is not currently running likely due to 737MAX related flight cancellations. You said that you wanted to keep it "encyclopedic" but ironically that means "covering a large range of knowledge, often in great detail" . So my edits actually make it more Encyclopedic. However I have remembered right now that years ago, I had a problem with citing days of the week with an airport that at the time had no daily routes, so even though people come to Wiki looking for information, I will respect your rule no matter how misguided I believe it is. BUT there currently is no nonstop service from Newark to Orlando on Southwest until August 10th, that is a fact and people who visit the page will be met with inaccurate information if it is not fixed So I am going to put that back into the article. Jthompson5254 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Jthompson5254 I have moved your comment here - which is a better place - I will reply a soon as able. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jthompson5254: Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, I reverted your edits because as I said the detail added is not encyclopaedic, by this I meant that the detail is of no lasting consequence to an encyclopaedic article. Encyclopaedias are tertiary repositories of knowledge, they are not newspapers or directories or everything about a subject. The level of detail I reverted was seriously transitory, and would have to be changed again in a week or a month or somesuch defined and relatively short time, such detail is definitely not encyclopaedic. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

References

WP:ANI – Multiple repeated reverts that resulted in page protection, then continued on related page

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding "Multiple repeated reverts". The thread is Marc Lacoste, Andrewgprout: multiple repeated reverts that resulted in page protection, then continued on related page. The discussion is about the topic Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   05:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to further discuss your edits. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   05:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   06:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   02:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

just to note this boomeranged big time... Andrewgprout (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Do not delete from talk pages

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing.

Dear Andrew! Do not delete or refactor talk pages, unless other editors agree with your intentions, thank you. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   07:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It is you that is refactoring talk pages By your subsequent edits. Please do not add anchors against my comments it is impolite and rude, if you can’t see that you do not deserve to be here. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Consolidating mainline/regional

This user (User:Chidino) is accusing me of sockpuppetry simply because they disagree with the edits and claims there is no "consensus", even though the majority of the users who commented agreed (this user is a noted airliners.net user by the way). I have explained ad nauseam why this is in the best interests of the project, do you agree? Blissfield101 (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Blissfield101: if the user suspects you of Sockpuppetry he should report you in the proper way and not use it as an excuse to revert your edits and plaster his suspicions across Wikipedia, as he did. That behaviour is clearly unacceptable in my view.

And yes I absolutely agree that the tables need simplification, and they are currently unencyclopaedic in nature. There are a range of solutions to this and merging into an overall brand seems very sensible to me and a step toward encyclopaedic-ness. I also agree that the discussion strongly supports such merges. What is very true is that we are not writing Wikipedia for airliners.net users.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: Thank you. I am unsure of what to do because the users who are airline enthusiasts continue to revert and claim there is no consensus, especially User:Vmzp85 (despite that the said user has been warned). Blissfield101 (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

First, as to the sock puppetry, I do not have hard evidence, and I have said that only that there are "coincidences", which I explained in full in my note to you as well as my comments on the talk page for O'Hare. A brief discussion -- one that died because of lack of attention -- led by User:Tofutwitch11 at on January 29, 2018. That conversation, with few participants (please check) reached no conclusions, considering only 16 editors voted. Suggestions were strongly made to broaden the sample population in order to reflect average Wikipedia users rather than the passions of aviation "geeks". Nine is the "consensus" Blissfield101 has been trying to insist upon.

As you are well aware (as a contributor to that discussion), it suddenly became an issue with User:Aerostar3 on May 3, 2019, 16 months after the issue reached any sort of insight, let alone policy. The article Revisions started with approximately three weeks. This is not consensus or the ideals that Wikipedia is supposed to uphold.

This change has not gone through WP:Airports, so it should remain as published there until otherwise. Articles should be reverted back. This has been discussed in depth before, and always ends up with keeping them unconsildated because of the noted service difference between the two. There was a point where we seperated them into which carrier operates -- which was consolidated several years ago thanks to a process I spearheaded on WP:Airports. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

List of international airports by country:

Hi Andrew. Thanks for undoing my reversion. I clicked on the new vandalism button to see what it did, not expecting it to do a reversion. Didn't intend to modify this page. I know not to use the button now. Always new features popping up on Wikipedia! Teraplane (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident

Hello. Did you read my edit summary before making this reversion? [18] Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits of Toronto Pearson International Airport article?

Hi, You recently reverted two edits I made to the Toronto Pearson International Airport article. I updated a reference for the newly announced Air India service. I also added a resumption date for Air Canada’s Toronto to Delhi service as it is currently not operating, and I provided a reference for that as well. I explained my edits in the edit summary. I am curious why you think these two edits added “transitory unencylopedic details” to the article? Also, did you read my edit summary before reverting? Thanks CdnFlyer (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@CdnFlyer: Did you read my edit summary? Have you read WP:NOTTRAVEL WP:NOTDIRECTORY WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The entry without the start date is valid as it is, detailing a very temporary ad hoc stop in service does nothing to influence the encyclopaedic need being filled here which is to describe the sphere of influence an airport has. An encyclopaedia contains reasonably static information while a directory has such detail. Wikipedia is not a directory. Andrewgprout (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: Hi. Yes I did read your edit summary, and yes I have also read through WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Did you read my edit summary? I made a good faith edit in line with the information provided at Newark Liberty International Airport and Indira Gandhi International Airport (articles that I have not edited). The Air Canada Delhi route suspension is not an ad hoc stop in service, it is a suspension of service that has a stated resumption date. I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content and could not find anything stating that it is inappropriate to add this information to the article, unless you think it would preferable to state the the route is suspended without displaying the resumption date? CdnFlyer (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@CdnFlyer: This individual reverted my edit as well for a suspended route that _should_ have been done back on June 7th, yet the editors of the San Francisco Airport page (SFO) did not. Therefore, with proper link provided, I took the initiative to, ensuring that the route news was not "swept under the rug" by SFO editors-- or so it seemed. I see he has been warned already on this talk page about being blocked on certain pages, so probably, we should just let an (alleged) troll's disrespect of others' work "run its course to punishment", if you see what I mean. Peace.PhoebeMin1 (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Simeis 147

Hi Andrewgprout. I need an explanation for your reversion of my reversion of a bad edit onSimeis 147. The original edit was by a professional disruptive editor, WP:LTA/BKFIP. I would appreciate it if you would undo your edit, unless you have expertise in astronomy. You don't lose brownie points when you undo your own edits, BTW. Thanks. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cptmrmcmillan: The edit conformed to the Manual of style which discourages links in the initial bolded text. I have edited the article restoring the deleted link in a way I think fits the expectations of the MOS. As noted by many at WP:LTA/BKFIP the editor's edits are often somewhat valid, the problem appears to be in the delivery. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Good enough. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch_mosque_shootings

Hi! Rather puzzled by your reversion of my edit [19]. You claim that it is not supported by a talk page discussion, but there is one, to which you have not contributed [20]. Please can you revert your misleading edit. Thank you!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 01:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@L'Origine du monde: I don't really have a solid opinion on the subject which is why I have not participated in any discussion. My participation in the discussion is up to me and whether I do or don't discuss something does not disqualify me from reverting your edit. However it is clear that there is no consensus on the talk page for your change. Please explain which bit of the discussion says such. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This discussion [21]. You wrote "The talk page says nothing of the sort" which is not how I read it. But I made an RFC.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 02:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I don't want to be rude, but you reverted my edit claiming "The talk page says nothing of the sort". I have linked you to a current month long discussion, in which I saw the original discussion summarised, three people supporting the change, and one abstention. I would be most grateful if you would undo your revert in view of the interim conclusions of the current rfc, or at least explain there how consensus could be demonstrated to your satisfaction. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 23:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@L'Origine du monde: At least two people have told you your view of what the talk page says was over zealous to put it kindly, this has been discussed much over the last months. Just wait until the rfc is finished the worst thing for you to do at the moment is to prejudge the result or overwhelm it with your POV. These things take time, please calm down and just wait, an rfc needs to be properly canvassed and while we are at it properly titled. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I am confused by your interpretation of the discussion. Do you not see 3 people supporting the change, and one person remaining neutral? "The talk page says nothing of the sort" was irritating. I'll get over it :)♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 03:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Mt Kaukau

My friend, I’m sorry to say, but you are sadly mistaken on how to pronounce this word. It is a Maori language word, and there is absolutely no excuse not to pronounce it correctly. It is also a blatantly racist statement to say there is a “Pākehā” way of saying it, so if you ever have said that, please refrain from doing so ever again. Mispronunciation is harmful. It is lazy, shows no respect to the mana of the tangata whenua, and is misleading for people who mispronounce it, as they come to wikipedia to see how it is pronounced. You are responsible for misleading people. Now I have to put in citations to ensure my edit isn’t removed. Whether or not you are Maori is irrelevant; we must treat words of this language with respect. If you still don’t believe me, check out the below. https://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?idiom=&phrase=&proverb=&loan=&histLoanWords=&keywords=Kaukau Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mount Kaukau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ngaio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting my edit unnecessarily: SFO page for Southwest Airlines

  Please read this carefully: Similar to the case for others I have read on here with the same problem with you, I don't appreciate your insulting comment when inappropriately reverting my edit. I provided a link along with the text insertion for a route that is currently, indefinitely suspended, as a service to the public looking up nonstop routes between AUS and SFO. As my link indicates, there are several suspended routes as a result of the [Boeing] 737 MAX grounding, and many of them may remain suspended through October or later. It is no different than the dozens of editors indicating when a route begins, ends, or is resumed. You could have--with common courtesy--had the decency to contact me first, to inquire why I made the edit-- for if you failed that is, to take the time to look at the link and my reasoning.PhoebeMin1 (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@PhoebeMin1: yes but none of this is encyclopaedic. If you add something that is going to need to be taken out in a week or a month you are adding directory type information and Wikipedia is not a directory plain and simple. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting of Milano Malpensa page

Good morning

I wonder wherever your undos in Milano Malpensa page are worthy (in this case please provide info) or just your spoils. 1) Not only references for charters are provided (as stated at the beginning of the destination table), but ref.s for the charter under discussion are provided directly from the Malpensa official website. Given that I think that no more ref are needed, if you are not convinced it is a your problem. 2) Other info precedently added (e.g. NEOS service to Berlin Schone) are fake (no info not on NEOS website, NOR in Malpensa). 3) Some services are over. 4) Bare references are now filled

I'm reminding you that arbitral removal of contents is a vandalism, YOU have vandalised the page. Provide reasonable argumentations on your edits or stop them. Hope to never come back on this again in the future.

Reverts to Japan Air 123

Hello. I see you reverted my edits to Japan Airlines Flight 123 earlier, due to my "putting words into the mouths of the report writers". I have since added some direct quotes from the report, and added a load of page numbers to new and existing citations in an attempt to be more thorough and to try and avoid that perception. I did use to be a prolific vandal-fighter on here about 8 years ago, and completely recognize that I am probably out of my element in regards to editing. If you have any concerns regarding my most recent edits, please let me know so I can rectify anything that may be out of line.

Best regards,

--Vandalism destroyer 15:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ngurah Rai International Airport

Hello. You recently removed Thomas Cook Airlines from the article, stating that "This an encyclopaedia not an airline directory", which I think is not a valid reason why you should remove that, since there are references stating that this flight does exist. Can you please give a valid reason why you remove that? Thanks. Cal1407 (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cal1407:The reference says there is one flight. Documenting this one flight is not what an encyclopaedia is for. Sorry but this is clear. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

JFK Terminal 4 and Delta

Almost all flights from Terminal 4 in JFK airport are internaltional. Only a few exceptions, all by Delta. That's why it was mentioned in the text that you deleted (note that 3 domestic destinations were here for a long time, and I have only added Cleveland since DL5149 flight is now from terminal 4 instead of 2 [22]. Gaz v pol (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gaz v pol: not everything that might be true is worthwhile and encyclopaedic. Your picture is Original Reasearch. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

comment moved from user page

RicHicks made this comment on my talk page - I have moved it here.

Hello I have a question what is with the flags on some airport sites. Folk have added to dfw in past and they are removed yet they live on on other sites most recently seen Bentonville AR airport.

@RicHicks: Ric the Manual of style MOS:FLAG severely discourages the use of flags as decoration, which is how they are often being used. It is probably safe to say most of the flags you see on aviation related articles are pretty counter to the MOS. I would be very very careful adding flags to articles unless you can justify their use by saying the detail actually represents the country displayed. ie a athlete winning a medal at the olympic games - is certainly regarded appropriate. People dying in an aircrash probably not. There are lots of exceptions in real life though. The MOS is even harder on sub national flags such as those of US states. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no plans on using state flags. I just find it odd that some airports ala dfw no state flags and other airports use them. I figured the anti flag police would be more consistent but I guess not

Larnaca Airport

Why am I not allowed to use a timetable as a reference but you're allowing other users to, no flights are present after the date I provided, another editor on the page changed one of Norwegian's flights from seasonal to year round citing the timetable as a reference, when I did this for a Wizz Air flight on the Luton page you stated it as original research so why are they allowed to do that if you said I couldn't? Air7777 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Air7777: What you are doing is original research - what you need is a sensible WP:SECONDARY reference to back up your claim. Does the reference actually say that or are you inferring a date from an inability to book - the two things are very very different. Someone else did something and got away with it is not a rationale that will get you very far here. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

UA Mainline Seasonal Service to IAD

This service is existing for the summer season. I have been tracking this service through mwaa.com website; which is the official website for the Washington DC area airports. Shakbok (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)shakbok