User talk:VenFlyer98: Difference between revisions
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:VenFlyer98/Archive 1. (BOT) |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:VenFlyer98/Archive 1. (BOT) |
||
(62 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|collapsible=yes|title=The Vault|image=Locker-dynamic-gradient.png}} |
{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|collapsible=yes|title=The Vault|image=Locker-dynamic-gradient.png}} |
||
== Quick Question == |
|||
==Bonza== |
|||
Hello, just wanted to let you know I undid an edit you made reverting a previous edit on [[Gold Coast Airport]]. You reverted it as you said the changes (reflecting Bonza flight suspensions) were unsourced. The company has entered Voluntary Administration and announced all flights are suspended until further notice. This is a headline story across major national news outlets in Australia - eg. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-30/bonza-flights-cancelled-business-viability-question/103783236]. Just wanted to make you aware so you don't revert any other edits reflecting this unnecessarily. It looks pretty likely they'll resume as their aircraft have been repossessed and they have no real assets, so it's likely Bonza will be removed from Airlines and Destinations in the coming days once liquidation formally announced. [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 00:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hi! Just a quick question for you. Why do you remove a route when it doesn't have a reliable source just to add it back with a better source. Shouldn't you just get the route and add the source? Thanks! [[User:Ryanlovestravel|Ryanlovestravel]] ([[User talk:Ryanlovestravel|talk]]) 13:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
:Hello, |
|||
:Of course I understand what is going on with Bonza. However, the user I reverted (and further more your revert of my edit) is unsourced. Please see [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. You need to include inline citations when making edits (see [[WP:IC]]). |
|||
⚫ | |||
::I understand what your point and respect you rigid adherence to policy. I dont wish to argue with you, but I would I suggest since you are aware of the situation, rather than reverting good faith edits, wouldn't it be more productive to add a citation rather than revert the edit on the grounds of policy? In this case, reverting the edit is actually removing information that you know to be true and can be easily [[WP:V|verified]] to enforce policy, which comes across as somewhat disingenuous, goes against the spirit of [[WP:BUREAU]] and doesnt improve actually Wikipedia. Furthermore, if you want to apply the rules in such a bureaucratic way, why only this article and not all the other Bonza destinations that show as suspended without inline citations? I would argue that it is highly likely the data relating to Bonza is going to be removed from these lists in the coming days (and you cant provide an inline citation for removed content - although its a good idea to annotate in the edit summary). Even if you dont want to add the citation, I think its reasonable to apply [[WP:Ignore]] here. But I'm not going to [[Wikipedia:REICHSTAG|climb the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman]] over something that won't likely wont matter in a few days. Thanks for responding and hearing me out! [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 06:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{reply to|Dfadden}} |
|||
:::I understand, but can't I say the same to you? You've had your account for over a decade at this point, I'm going to assume in good faith you know how [[WP:IC|inline citations]] work when citing articles. If that is true, and you saw my revert for being unsourced (as it included no inline citations), couldn't you do a manual revert and add them rather than just revert and put the citation in the edit summary? That just brings it back to the original unsourced state. I only reverted some Bonza destinations as I wasn't actively going around to all of them, but going to do that now to clean them up. As I said, going to go clean things up now and yes, I should've just thrown the inline citations in myself, and not trying to [[WP:SHOOT]], but it was more that I was doing several reverts at a time from a user who was listing the suspensions unsourced, and you know how [[WP:V]] is. Not trying to start anything, as we both know, Bonza is probably done in the coming days, but that's just my side of it. Thanks! [[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 22:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I accept that I also could have done better here and I apologise if I came across as confrontational. At the time when I reverted the edit, I was a little busy - it just jumped out at me as something that was obviously true and assumed that you may not have been across the news (I know, assumptions are dangerous!) Reverting was a quick fix. I left the citation in the edit summary as clarification in the honest belief that Bonza would be removed from the box within a day or two anyway, or at the very least there would be substantial changes to their route network rendering the source out of date by the time I had a chance to do a more comprehensive edit and clean up all the Bonza articles, or to help someone who may beat me to it. |
|||
::::Current and rapidly developing events are often the subject of contentious edits. I dont think we are far apart in our intent and I believe we both edit in good faith. Clearly we have a difference of opinion on where discretion is warranted regarding policy and will not change each other's minds, but I wouldnt want that to stop us from working to improve aviation content in a collaborative way! Thanks for all your contributions! [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 03:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply to|Ryanlovestravel}} Hi, the source you used was a Twitter link which violates [[WP:UGC]]. Additionally, you didn’t include the start dates. Thanks! [[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 18:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Bus Routes == |
|||
::I totally understand that, appreciate the reply. I was referring to an incident in March on the TPA page with Breeze. You send me a threatening message that was kind of rude for a route that was real, I just didn't have a source yet because I was new to actually editing on the platform. It's no big deal, I was just curious why you wouldn't just add a source to the existing route I wrote, instead of deleting what I wrote. No problem if you don't remember. Thanks! [[User:Ryanlovestravel|Ryanlovestravel]] ([[User talk:Ryanlovestravel|talk]]) 01:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{reply to|Ryanlovestravel}} Oh, that in March was because you added unsourced content. That message is pre-written by [[WP:TW|Twinkle]] and I used a level 3 warning since that wasn’t the first time you added unsourced content. Regardless if I reverted or just added the source, I would’ve sent that message anyway since you added unsourced content. Thanks! [[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 02:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== How to display current operations == |
|||
I saw that you undid my revisions for all the bus routes, but I feel that they should be added somewhere because they are technically operated by American Airlines and are included in the passenger count (the busses are just replacements for E-145s and other American Eagle Aircraft). [[User:BlindGiraffe123|BlindGiraffe123]] ([[User talk:BlindGiraffe123|talk]]) 10:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hello. I’m not flaming like some of the other users that have posted on your page. I understand that you are upholding Wikipedia’s policies. However, surely there must be some balance between enforcement of policy and removing verifiably accurate information. I noticed that many people choose to add a “citation needed” flag instead of removing an edit outright. In the case of BHM, I understand that the airline itself isn’t considered a “reliable source”. I made an edit because AA mainline has resumed BHM-DFW. This is verifiable outside of the airline by looking at AAL2859 on flightaware for an example. It is presently operating and scheduled to continue. Essentially none of the routes on the BHM page have any sources. Yet they are operating and allowed to remain on the page. The fact that some DFW flights are being operated by mainline isn’t the kind of thing that is going to get a news story. But that doesn’t make it any less verifiable (via flight tracking). Respectfully, why is it that the majority of the routes on the BHM page have no sources all, or other statements have been tagged with “citation needed”, but this edit was outright removed? AA mainline is operating at BHM and that can be verified, but nothing has been published by a news or industry site as it’s not “newsworthy”. Is there not a way to display AA mainline on the page to reflected actual current operations? [[User:StanleyJohaansen|StanleyJohaansen]] ([[User talk:StanleyJohaansen|talk]]) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply to|BlindGiraffe123}} Hello, these routes are not replacement routes. Additionally they are not operated by American or any American Eagle carrier, they are operated by Landline which is not an Eagle carrier. This was previously discussed at [[WP:AIRPORTS]] and bus routes are a violation of [[WP:NOTTRAVEL]]. |
|||
:Thank you! [[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 23:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for the clarification. [[User:BlindGiraffe123|BlindGiraffe123]] ([[User talk:BlindGiraffe123|talk]]) 01:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply to|StanleyJohaansen}} Hi, first of all, thank you for your kindness in your message! A lot of people can be very defensive about their edits being reverted (as you can see by other messages here), so I appreciate the kindness! Regarding the topic at hand, yes it's a tough situation especially when an airline switches between mainline and regional operations on the route since those changes aren't usually noted anywhere by sources that would meet [[WP:RS]]. I do agree though, adding a "citation needed" tag would probably be best since it's clear the route is flying. Don't even think it's seasonal since checking AA's website shows a 319 on the route throughout the entire winter including next summer (as far as their schedules currently go). Think a CN tag is the best bet at this point. |
|||
== May 2024 == |
|||
⚫ | |||
::That was very reasonable of you. Thank you for your diligence. Best wishes. [[User:StanleyJohaansen|StanleyJohaansen]] ([[User talk:StanleyJohaansen|talk]]) 18:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Suggestion for BNA == |
|||
[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] Please stop. If you continue to add [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|unsourced or poorly sourced]] content, as you did at [[:SkyTeam]], you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. ''Adding unsourced entries and marking them as needing sources is clearly accepting that there is a policy on citing every piece of information. You have violated [[WP:VERIFY]].''<!-- Template:uw-unsourced3 --> '''[[User:Jetstreamer|Jetstreamer]]''' ''{{sup|[[User talk:Jetstreamer#top|Talk]]}}'' 12:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
(Full summary at [[Talk:Nashville International Airport]]) |
|||
:Just digging the fact that this is a [[WP:UWLEVELS|level 3 warning]] assuming bad faith. That's fun. [[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 01:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::You already had a second-level warning for adding uncited material and are well aware of [[WP:VERIFY]]. I don't see the fun in this,--'''[[User:Jetstreamer|Jetstreamer]]''' ''{{sup|[[User talk:Jetstreamer#top|Talk]]}}'' 13:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::You must certainly be fun at parties. Just seeing what accurate information I can get on that page since you pretty much safeguard it. Totally get it violating policy, just seeing what I can push (understand that’s wrong). Have a good one! [[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
So I know it has been a few weeks since the whole discussion about whether BNA should have maps. But I now have a new idea: Only one map, the international map. Less clutter, less maintenance, still informative. I brought this to you because the talk page only received attention by 2 editors, neither of which regularly edit this article. By the way, the RfC that you suggested sadly did not get the attention for a full consensus, with only one legitimate comment from [[User:LoneOmega|LoneOmega]] on [[User talk:King airaglub|my talk page]], but he did like the idea of maps. |
|||
== Mexicana Embraer Order == |
|||
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope you consider my proposal thoroughly. [[User:King airaglub|King airaglub]] ([[User talk:King airaglub|talk]]) 02:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
== Thanks for your help (MacArthur Airport) == |
|||
⚫ | |||
:I did see the talk page the other day. While I still recommend an RfC, I’d say doing it over at a place like [[WP:AIRPORTS]] would be much better for visibility than your own talk page. However, even with your new proposal I’m in agreement with what [[user: The Banner|The Banner]] said. I think it’s just repeated information from the table. I’m also not a fan of just a map for international destinations and feel it should be all or nothing. An international map would provide no additional information that isn’t already shown by the table. Just my two cents. ([[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 04:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)) |
|||
== User:Erobran == |
|||
⚫ | |||
This user continues to add Turkish Airlines service to Lima without providing an exact date for it. I gave him a link to the discussion on WT:AIRPORTS but he continues to argue against it. Can you take a look? Thanks. [[User:Jz0610|Jz0610]] ([[User talk:Jz0610|talk]]) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Thank you for your help in editing & improving the article on Long Island MacArthur Airport – and for helping me better understand WP:AIRPORTS and WP:NOTTRAVEL. I have been wanting to start doing more work on airport articles for some time now (especially in and around the NY metropolitan area), as a local who has always adored infrastructure & aviation and as someone who has long enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia – and so I appreciate the feedback which you have provided me with in the change logs. I am hoping to eventually get the article to a rating of at least GA (it needs a reassessment no matter what, though, as it is still rated as start class; I believe the last time it was assessed was 2009), and so the refresher was greatly appreciated. Again, I apologize for those good-faith errors I made and appreciate all the feedback you left. |
|||
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == |
|||
That said, I have a question regarding destination maps out of curiosity (I recall from a year or so ago that you told me they are sometimes unnecessary, when I added one to the article without realizing they weren't necessary for the article): when is it appropriate to include those maps in an article (if ever)? I have looked through the WP:AIRPORTS talk archives and read through the content section, but have yet to find any clear, straight-to-the-point answer to that respect (then again, I saw through the archives that they have long been a subject of debate). I will not be re-adding a destination map unless I know for certain that one is warranted – and would like to help add/remove them from other airport articles that I may come across, and so any advice is greatly appreciated. |
|||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> |
|||
Thanks again. |
|||
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div> |
|||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> |
|||
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2024|2024 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. |
|||
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|||
Cheers, [[User:Infrastorian|Infrastorian]] ([[User talk:Infrastorian|talk]]) 19:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
</div> |
|||
</div> |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/07&oldid=1258243692 --> |
Latest revision as of 21:36, 20 November 2024
This is VenFlyer98's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Quick Question
[edit]Hi! Just a quick question for you. Why do you remove a route when it doesn't have a reliable source just to add it back with a better source. Shouldn't you just get the route and add the source? Thanks! Ryanlovestravel (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ryanlovestravel: Hi, the source you used was a Twitter link which violates WP:UGC. Additionally, you didn’t include the start dates. Thanks! VenFlyer98 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I totally understand that, appreciate the reply. I was referring to an incident in March on the TPA page with Breeze. You send me a threatening message that was kind of rude for a route that was real, I just didn't have a source yet because I was new to actually editing on the platform. It's no big deal, I was just curious why you wouldn't just add a source to the existing route I wrote, instead of deleting what I wrote. No problem if you don't remember. Thanks! Ryanlovestravel (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ryanlovestravel: Oh, that in March was because you added unsourced content. That message is pre-written by Twinkle and I used a level 3 warning since that wasn’t the first time you added unsourced content. Regardless if I reverted or just added the source, I would’ve sent that message anyway since you added unsourced content. Thanks! VenFlyer98 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I totally understand that, appreciate the reply. I was referring to an incident in March on the TPA page with Breeze. You send me a threatening message that was kind of rude for a route that was real, I just didn't have a source yet because I was new to actually editing on the platform. It's no big deal, I was just curious why you wouldn't just add a source to the existing route I wrote, instead of deleting what I wrote. No problem if you don't remember. Thanks! Ryanlovestravel (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
How to display current operations
[edit]Hello. I’m not flaming like some of the other users that have posted on your page. I understand that you are upholding Wikipedia’s policies. However, surely there must be some balance between enforcement of policy and removing verifiably accurate information. I noticed that many people choose to add a “citation needed” flag instead of removing an edit outright. In the case of BHM, I understand that the airline itself isn’t considered a “reliable source”. I made an edit because AA mainline has resumed BHM-DFW. This is verifiable outside of the airline by looking at AAL2859 on flightaware for an example. It is presently operating and scheduled to continue. Essentially none of the routes on the BHM page have any sources. Yet they are operating and allowed to remain on the page. The fact that some DFW flights are being operated by mainline isn’t the kind of thing that is going to get a news story. But that doesn’t make it any less verifiable (via flight tracking). Respectfully, why is it that the majority of the routes on the BHM page have no sources all, or other statements have been tagged with “citation needed”, but this edit was outright removed? AA mainline is operating at BHM and that can be verified, but nothing has been published by a news or industry site as it’s not “newsworthy”. Is there not a way to display AA mainline on the page to reflected actual current operations? StanleyJohaansen (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @StanleyJohaansen: Hi, first of all, thank you for your kindness in your message! A lot of people can be very defensive about their edits being reverted (as you can see by other messages here), so I appreciate the kindness! Regarding the topic at hand, yes it's a tough situation especially when an airline switches between mainline and regional operations on the route since those changes aren't usually noted anywhere by sources that would meet WP:RS. I do agree though, adding a "citation needed" tag would probably be best since it's clear the route is flying. Don't even think it's seasonal since checking AA's website shows a 319 on the route throughout the entire winter including next summer (as far as their schedules currently go). Think a CN tag is the best bet at this point.
- Thanks! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC))
- That was very reasonable of you. Thank you for your diligence. Best wishes. StanleyJohaansen (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion for BNA
[edit](Full summary at Talk:Nashville International Airport)
So I know it has been a few weeks since the whole discussion about whether BNA should have maps. But I now have a new idea: Only one map, the international map. Less clutter, less maintenance, still informative. I brought this to you because the talk page only received attention by 2 editors, neither of which regularly edit this article. By the way, the RfC that you suggested sadly did not get the attention for a full consensus, with only one legitimate comment from LoneOmega on my talk page, but he did like the idea of maps.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope you consider my proposal thoroughly. King airaglub (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- @King airaglub:
- Hi,
- I did see the talk page the other day. While I still recommend an RfC, I’d say doing it over at a place like WP:AIRPORTS would be much better for visibility than your own talk page. However, even with your new proposal I’m in agreement with what The Banner said. I think it’s just repeated information from the table. I’m also not a fan of just a map for international destinations and feel it should be all or nothing. An international map would provide no additional information that isn’t already shown by the table. Just my two cents. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC))
User:Erobran
[edit]This user continues to add Turkish Airlines service to Lima without providing an exact date for it. I gave him a link to the discussion on WT:AIRPORTS but he continues to argue against it. Can you take a look? Thanks. Jz0610 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)