User talk:VenFlyer98: Difference between revisions
VenFlyer98 (talk | contribs) |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:VenFlyer98/Archive 1. (BOT) |
||
(42 intermediate revisions by 10 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 == |
||
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) |
|||
[[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) |
|||
: |
:{{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) |
||
::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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
::: |
:::{{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 == |
|||
== Mexicana Embraer Order == |
|||
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) |
|||
It was just confirmed by Embraer, see above section that I also edited and sourced. In planespotter.net, which is the source for this section, it says that the ERJ-145s are in Mexicana's possession, so they should also be listed here. [[User:Aeromax38|Aeromax38]] ([[User talk:Aeromax38|talk]]) 15:55, 3 June 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. |
|||
== Thanks for your help (MacArthur Airport) == |
|||
⚫ | |||
::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 == |
|||
⚫ | |||
(Full summary at [[Talk:Nashville International Airport]]) |
|||
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. |
|||
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. |
|||
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. |
|||
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 again. |
|||
⚫ | |||
Cheers, [[User:Infrastorian|Infrastorian]] ([[User talk:Infrastorian|talk]]) 19:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
: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 == |
|||
:Hey, no worries! We're both just trying to make the article as best as it can be, and I appreciate you trying to get it up to GA. As for maps, there really hasn't been any clear consensus on it, but most users in the aviation project seem to be against it. Really could use another discussion over at [[WP:AIRPORTS]], but I think it's generally agreed to not use maps. Again, could probably use a new discussion on it. Thanks! [[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 04:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
== AMS Delta PDX date == |
|||
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == |
|||
What did you change the date format? Since this is a European airport, shouldn’t the format be Day/Month/Year? [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8544:D000:CD4C:E5E4:C3C8:23DC|2600:1700:8544:D000:CD4C:E5E4:C3C8:23DC]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:8544:D000:CD4C:E5E4:C3C8:23DC|talk]]) 12:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> |
|||
:Correct. Don’t know why you changed it to MM/DD/YYYY after, then. It’s all fixed now. [[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 18:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<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. |
|||
== New Orleans Airport - Breeze Airways routes == |
|||
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> |
|||
I've changed the sources to Simple Flying for both MSY-LAS, MSY-LAX. Both of these websites correctly source what you can find and book directly on flybreeze.com. I wouldn't source an O/D pair without it being bookable directly on the airlines webpage. [[User:Bretonrlong|Bretonrlong]] ([[User talk:Bretonrlong|talk]]) 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
</div> |
|||
:Hello {{reply to|Bretonrlong}}, |
|||
</div> |
|||
:I know Breeze has these routes bookable. However, none of the sources you’ve provided meet [[WP:RS]]. SimpleFlying is not reliable either (see [[WP:SIMPLEFLYING]]). |
|||
<!-- 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 --> |
|||
⚫ | |||
::This has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard of. So because someone considers these data sources to “not be reliable” the page is displaying incorrect destination information for the airport. This page is UNRELIABLE!! The route is literally bookable directly on Breezes own website, how much more reliable can you get. [[User:Bretonrlong|Bretonrlong]] ([[User talk:Bretonrlong|talk]]) 22:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
:::This is the policies of Wikipedia, please see [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]]. You need reliable, secondary sources. The ones you are providing are not reliable. I am not the only one who would consider these unreliable, plenty of users do. Not sure how often you edit airport articles, but they need to follow Wikipedia's policy on reliability. If you find a reliable source, then add it so the article is accurate, but don't get [[WP:PA|angry at me]] for following Wikipedia's own policies. [[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 23:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've actually been editing airport articles for years. It makes zero sense to need a secondary source if the airline themselves offer said service FOR SALE on their own website. What exactly is needed for proof a receipt of purchase? I would <u>never</u> trust any secondary source over the primary airline source. By reverting the page it not only makes the wiki page unreliable, but also reduces public trust in the page. As for some of the airline blogs, especially those that appear to now be AI generated, I understand your point completely and agree those shouldn't be sourced. However, if the airline itself is offering the service and its bookable directly on their website (not through a third party website) that should be considered a source truth (better than a secondary source). [[User:Bretonrlong|Bretonrlong]] ([[User talk:Bretonrlong|talk]]) 00:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::This is the part I have a beef with |
|||
:::::"I know Breeze has these routes bookable. However, none of the sources you’ve provided meet WP:RS. SimpleFlying is not reliable either (see WP:SIMPLEFLYING)." |
|||
:::::Curious, why are you just undoing rather than contributing and providing better sources? In the above statement you even admit the routes are bookable. So if several hundred passengers book this service, but no one writes an article about said service, that service doesn't exist? [[User:Bretonrlong|Bretonrlong]] ([[User talk:Bretonrlong|talk]]) 00:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Does this article suffice? |
|||
::::::https://neworleanscitybusiness.com/blog/2024/07/08/breeze-airways-adds-nonstop-route-from-new-orleans-to-tourist-destination/ [[User:Bretonrlong|Bretonrlong]] ([[User talk:Bretonrlong|talk]]) 00:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{reply to|Bretonrlong}} It has been discussed numerous times at [[WP:AIRPORTS]] that you need RELIABLE SECONDARY sources for airline routes (see [[WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT]], which states "airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet [[WP:DUE]]. A review of the closure of that RfC yielded no consensus to overturn it"). There has been RfCs about this before and most recently, it was agreed that these tables need secondary, reliable sources when adding information. As for me reverting, I have been trying to find better sources but none are available yet and I couldn't find any. The link you provided is the best one I found, it just doesn't mention the date for the LAX route. Additionally, using the airline's own website and booking engine is [[WP:OR]], which is why that isn't allowed to be a source. Feel free to trust the primary source, but on Wikipedia we use secondary reliable sources. [[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Are you joking? With airlines routes you have to use published schedules…not news articles. [[User:Tofutwitch11|Tofutwitch11]] ([[User talk:Tofutwitch11|talk]]) 21:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Stop adding incorrect information == |
|||
I don’t know what the deal is, but BDL-IAH does not resume until March 2025 per United schedules. Your source is incorrect, just because it’s published on the internet does not mean it is right. It is outdated and inaccurate, please stop adding incorrect info. [[User:Tofutwitch11|Tofutwitch11]] ([[User talk:Tofutwitch11|talk]]) 21:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply to|Tofutwitch11}} You need a reliable, secondary source. The airline’s schedule is a primary source that is [[WP:OR]], and [[WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT]] states “The consensus among the participants in a 2023 request for comment (RfC) was summarized as follows: airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE.” You can’t use primary sources (airline’s websites) as a source. Thank you. [[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 01:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Wrong wrong wrong. So you are letting articles show wrong outdated info? I don’t get it. How can you keep saying that BDL-IAH starts in September when that is simply not true? Are you for real? What a joke this has become [[User:Tofutwitch11|Tofutwitch11]] ([[User talk:Tofutwitch11|talk]]) 11:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Also, every single airport article has the AIRLINE SCHEDULES listed as a source for the destinations table. JFK- every source for the timetable is literally the airline schedules. So with your mindset I should be OK to remove the entire airlines and destinations page on every airport unless there is a source that isn’t from the airline or the airport (that would be too accurate or primary) to source the info from. Right? [[User:Tofutwitch11|Tofutwitch11]] ([[User talk:Tofutwitch11|talk]]) 11:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of [[Special:Contributions/VenFlyer98|your recent contributions]] did not appear to be constructive and have been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]]. You can find information about these at our [[Help:Getting started|welcome page]] which also provides further information about [[Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia|contributing constructively to this encyclopedia]]. If you only meant to make test edits, please use [[User:VenFlyer98/sandbox|your sandbox]] for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on [[User_talk:Tofutwitch11|my talk page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive1 --> |
|||
Stop adding wrong information to the protect [[User:Tofutwitch11|Tofutwitch11]] ([[User talk:Tofutwitch11|talk]]) 11:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply to|Tofutwitch}} Again, please see [[WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT]]. There was a big RfC at [[WP:AIRPORTS]] and the consensus was, when adding any information to destination tables on airport articles, you need a reliable, secondary source that supports your information which you have been failing to provide. The only reliable source for BDL-IAH shows the date. If it’s wrong, then please find a RELIABLE SECONDARY source that supports a different date. If you cannot, then leave the information alone. This is Wikipedia policy, please see [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. Thank you. [[User:VenFlyer98|VenFlyer98]] ([[User talk:VenFlyer98#top|talk]]) 17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
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)