User talk:Jetstreamer

Reversion in TAP Portugal

I don't know what kind of reversion you may have made in TAP Portugal page according to your justification, since TAP Portugal doesn't fly to Tel Aviv, nor any other city in Asia. Nupest 0:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Finding reliable source

Hi jetstremar I am runaparvin you told me if I want to add anything I have to add a reliable source but how can I add a reliable source changing the destinations? Please help me adding a reliable source but I can't understand why not you changing the page of us-bangla airlines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Runaparvin (talk • contribs)

Now 18th worst disaster

And still the 4th worst *at the time*. Please read the commit / diff information "Jetstreamer" before reverting changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voigty (talk • contribs)

hi, here is the info for KLM year round Bilbao service

http://news.klm.com/air-france-klm-2014-15-winter-schedule-26-october-2014--28-march-2015-en/

Air France-KLM 2014-15 winter schedule (26 October 2014 – 28 March 2015) KLM continue to serve the routes launched this summer: to Bilbao (Spain) and Zagreb (Croatia).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.27.46 (talk • contribs)

Re: Ethiopian Airlines accidents and incidents

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

Cox's Bazar Airport

Hi I made a change on Cox's Bazar Airport wiki page but you removed it as incorrect information, but the fact is Biman Bangladesh Airlines is going to resume its flight to Cox's Bazar Airport from Dhaka, Bangladesh. They posted it on their website (www.biman-airlines.com) as well as many mainstream bangladeshi media have covered the news http://bdnews24.com/business/2015/02/19/biman-to-resume-flying-on-5-domestic-routes-from-apr-6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.244.51 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I used the url you provided to mark the resumptions at Biman Bangladesh Airlines destinations. Despite WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT explaining how to add future destinations to airport articles, please contact me if you don't know how to add this information to the rest of the articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Vistara destination table

People keep changing format removing country name and adding IATA/IACO columns which are not needed any more, keep a check if possible, thanks.139.190.230.234 (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure. The latest version [1] includes the format agreed by consensus at WP:AIRLINE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The latest format edit was reverted, read edtiors note in history, he thinks that its not standard policy the table layout. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm watchlisting the article from now on.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone else popped in and removed the country column deeming it unecessary, some days back you didnt notice even though you participated in some editing there after that. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I did notice that. I think you should start discussing these matters at the article's talk, which is still empty despite the several disagreements you had with some users.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Airbus A330 / Turkish Airlines

Hello, Jetstreamer

You have removed both my contributions regarding the Turkish Airlines Airbus A330 incident at Kathmandu because you have considered them not notable (I am referring to the contributions on the wikipedia pages dedicated to the Airbus A330 Turkish Airlines). May I know why have you considered them "not notable" since this was an incident which resulted in a seriously damaged aircraft and one injured person?! I believe that removing them is a abuse, therefore i would need to know the motivation behind your actions.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calin.pirlog (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Calin.pirlog: I'm not the only one removing them.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Still, you have not answered my question. Why is this kind of accident considered not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calin.pirlog (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Calin.pirlog: Notability is addressed here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• You need to use the incident's facts to explain why the accident is not notable. Be explicit. Rattling off jargons on talkpages is not very useful. Mailer Diablo 22:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mailer Diablo: Did you read the page @Jetstreamer: just pointed to? Slasher-fun (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Slasher-fun: Of course. My own understanding is that the aircraft looks damaged and got stuck in the mud, and it is too early to assume the aircraft is not going to be written off/hull loss (a write-off will make the incident notable). If you don't explain why you think it is to the contrary using facts (and not merely policy/essays), everyone else is only going to re-add the content because neither party understood what each other meant. - Mailer Diablo 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Slasher-fun, Mailer Diablo, and Calin.pirlog: My position is not to add any incident/accident until a reliable source confirms the aircraft has been written off. Can you confirm that by simple inspection of a picture? I started a thread at the article's talk. Shouldn't we discuss this there so everyone can participate?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Much better, thank you for explaining your stand. Sure, we should discuss this at the article's talk. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

- So, it takes a written off aircraft for the article to be updated. Now, that's better then just removing my work, explaining things makes everybody's lives much easier :) I would say that the aircraft will not be written off, the damage seems not that bad (the front gear will need to be replaced and also engine no. 1 + some other smaller repairs). Thank you for making it clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calin.pirlog (talk • contribs) 09:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Air Serbia - financial data update

Again. Ever since that August-September battle for a consensus over the legitimity of the new article (Air Serbia), I have a dose of bitterness in mye mouth whenever I want to talk things over with you. I don't want to go into edit warring with you in our latest issue, and this way I just want to present my view of the situation. Template "Infobox company", as you know, has some parameters concerning financial status of the company (airline). These parameters, if not implemented, then surely are very similar in the template "Infobox airline". In my belief, this information should be filled based on the official revised financial reports and not the media information backed by the company's, I would say, promotional content, which in this case may be even very accurate, but not what should be taken for granted. So, have patience and wait for the official release of the revised financial report for calendar year 2014, which I expect that should be there in the following 2-3 months.

p.s. Based on our previous discussions, I assume that your, among others, biggest argument is that the company is re-branded, new, and more importantly, nearly doubled its revenue etc. But have patience, because of the given reasons. Thank you.--AirWolf ^talk 01:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@AirWolf: That's your opinion. A reliable source has been provided and your judgment about it is very limited. You do not own the article. An administrator has been informed [2] about your disruptive behaviour.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You are f**** arrogant here. What do you mean by it: "your judgment about it is very limited", you have some prejudices about me as a contributor, boy. And at the end, you are aiming finger in the wrong direction, try in different direction, towards you. You are acting just like that, constantly reverting anyone's contributions. You have relations with a few admins, I can also go that way. Author of the text source you were providing, or any other, even it is considered the most reliable, simply re-writed promotional content from Air Serbia.--AirWolf ^talk 10:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, stop edit warring, please revert your last edit. You are accusing me for "owning" the article, and you are the only one who is doing it. Admins will be notified about your disruptive behavior.--AirWolf ^talk 10:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

GoAir destinations table

Dear Jetstreamer, this time others changing format of GoAir destinations, which I have edited, by removing country name and adding IATA/IACO columns which are not needed any more according to WP:AIRLINE, please intervene. - M.soumen on 5 March 2015. — Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@M.soumen: This [3] edit restored your removal of the destinations table.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

But I had created a new article GoAir destinations as per the the wikipedia guidelines WP:AIRLINE. the current list showing IATA/ICAO codes instead. The new article I have created has been merged with the main GoAir article why is that?- M.Soumen — Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@M.soumen: That's because the number of destinations is not enough to justify a separate article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jajadelera SPI

G'day from Oz; you might be interested to know that I have just reopened an SPI for User:Jajadelera, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jajadelera. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell and YSSYguy: Jaja.Delera04 (talk · contribs) also a sock.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Indef'd. Can't be bothered to tag; not like he's making any effort to hide his identity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 32

The article contained the sentence: At the time of the accident a total of 39 A380s were operating with five airlines; Air France, Emirates, Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Qantas. Generally it seems more of interest to know if the plane was the 39th delivered or the first. I simply looked it up in planespotters.net to see that it was the 8th one delivered. I assume this information is readily available in multiple sources. Pacomartin (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pacomartin: Planespotters is not a reliable source. You don't need to assume anything. All you need to do is to support your changes with reliable sources per WP:VERIFY, which is a basic policy.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Request

Hi. There's a well known user hiding behind an IP (see 1, 2, 3 etc.) repetitively undoing and editing my contribution to Düsseldorf Airport and LTU International without any or misleading reasons given. This time he changed the layout of DUS#Airlines & Destinations among others (see 4, 5, 6; only German airports) by moving the destinations map into a separate paragraphs, which is from my point against Wikipedia's layout rules as the map is visualizing the table's content and is therefor related to it and should be placed in the same paragraph. If that's correct, I might need a little help. Tanks so far. --AviNation (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@AviNation: Someone else has requested full protection of the article due to an ongoing edit war. You should use the article talk page to discuss the differences you have with the IP editor.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

Although I don't always agree with you, you are more reasonable than some editors. Thanks! Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wowee Zowee public: Yeah, I'm not a monster. Don't mention it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't need the hyperbole

The guidelines say the terminated cities should be in the article. They don't say anything about allowing or disallowing entries in separate lists. The concept of a separate table for terminated routes hasn't been dealt with. There is an assumption that there should only be one list. I think having separate lists is much more useful, because someone searching for a list of destinations is usually interested only in current destinations. They are looking to answer the question 'Where does Qantas fly to?' They shouldn't have to separate current information mixed up with somewhere the airline used to fly for a few years in the 60s but stopped and never went back. This mixture is indifferent to what readers want from the article. I also think separating domestic from international is useful because they are almost separated anyway if the list goes by country. The flights to Argentina are separated from the other international entries by a long domestic list. Much better to split the lists, if only for ease of use by the reader. There wasn't a mass removal of entries for Qantas destinations. You don't need such silly hyperbole to make your point. There were a couple of removals of some incorrect entries, such as the non-scheduled services to Christmas Creek. Haneda and Narita simultaneously is also wrong as the changeover will not happen until later in the year, and Qantas doesn't and hasn't ever flown to Avalon and Osaka. They are Jetstar destinations. Jetstar and Qantas are different airlines. Just because Qantas includes them as a partner airline in its route map, that doesn't mean Jetstar-only routes belong in this list. In fact, I'd like to see any possible case anyone could make to have them included. Dragonair and Cathay Pacific destinations aren't combined. Jetstar and Qantas must be similarly separated. Mdw0 (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Two different layouts have been agreed some time ago. Both of them can be found at WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST. None of them have terminated destinations in a separate table.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that trying to separate the terminated items in separate tables is probably wasted breath, despite the advantages. I think the determination to stick with convention in the face of possible improvement is pointless conservatism. However, the issue of the other deletions haven't been mentioned, especially the Jetstar deletions. Jetstar destinations do not belong in this list, they belong in their own list.Mdw0 (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The article states in the lead that Jetstar destinations are included. However, their removal can be discussed at the article's talk.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Pristina International Airport

Can you keep an eye on this page? Air Serbia continues to be added as "(TBA begins 2015)" as WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT (bullet #11) specifically states that new services must have full start dates. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Air China flights to Budapest/Minsk

Air China is starting flights to Budapest and Minsk beginning 1 May 2015 according to [4] and [5]. According to both sources, the flight from Beijing to Budapest will have a stop-over in Minsk but the flight from Budapest to Beijing is nonstop. According to Airline Route, CA will not have traffic rights from Minsk to Budapest. Do we add Air China to the table at Minsk National Airport to Beijing but make a footnote saying that the flight is inbound only? We can't list Budapest solely as a destination for Air China from Minsk since they do not have traffic rights. Citydude1017 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Citydude1017: I'd say add it with a note saying the flight is inbound only.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Holland

Hi. I don't care much about the source. The name Holland as a substitute for the Netherlands is simply wrong. Within the Netherlands, there hasn't been a Holland ever since 1840. Fnorp (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's what the supporting source says. I've simply followed WP:VERIFY. Please discuss at the article's talk or at WT:AIRLINE to see the way to handle this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the source has got it wrong. Inform yourself about the difference between Holland and the Netherlands instead. Why insist on using an archaic name for a part of the country instead of the real name of the whole country while all other names in that sentence are names of countries too? How is that attitude helping the accuracy of Wikipedia? See [[6]]. I'm reverting your edit. There is no country Holland, there is no province or county of that name. Holland ended in 1840. Fnorp (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I used the material included in the source. I'll be adding a footnote with a clarification.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, thanks. Sorry to see though that you think that me trying to get the facts right is refusing "to accept a basic policy". Holland is not the Netherlands, that's a simple basic fact. I shouldn't have to have a "silly dispute" about it in the first place. Fnorp (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yugoslavia/Jugoslavia

Hello. I appreciate you a lot because of your anti-vandalism activity on several articles that we have both on our watchlists. By now I thought you have it clear that I make edits in order to improve wp. So I am really not sure what is your point here, but anyway, I will try to explain it to you and move on, I leave it to your judgment afterwords as, after all, its not that big deal anyway. The issue are your reverts (first and second). The source is this one. Yes, when talking about the countries as new destinations of Air Algerie it mistakanly says Jugoslavia instead of Yugoslavia. Its a not unusual typo mistake. Then in your second revert you mention WP:NOTBROKEN. Don't you see Jugoslavia is a redirect for Yugoslavia? So obviously they were referring to Yugoslavia. In English is and was allways Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia was the name of the country since 1929 till 2003, so Jugoslavia, with J, was just a typo error. If you find a source saying Portogal wouldn't you fix it to Portugal? I really cant see any reason why are you being a jerk with me on this one, I cant get you, if I am missing something please explain it to me. I will not edit war, I will leave the typo mistake that you insist in restoring, and hope one day you will understand and fix it. FkpCascais (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: Here's my explanation: WP:VERIFY is the answer and we cannot modify what reliable sources say. I'm perfectly aware that the correct name is Yugoslavia but I do not change names provided by these sources, which is the spirit of the verifiability policy. Regarding WP:NOTBROKEN, what you say is precisely in agreement with it, i.e. do not fix redirects. What can be done here is to add a pipe link in order to target Yugoslavia. This is not about what we prefer but to follow the basic policies. Please also note the thread above, where a similar discussion arose.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

For god sake, its not like if there is some reason for it, its just a typo ... -_- ... nevermind. FkpCascais (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I know what you mean, sometimes sources may use intentionally a different wording and some editors want to "fix it" and by that changing what originally the author of the source meant. But that is not the case here, the author of the source simply innocently made a mistake of writing Jugoslavia instead of Yugoslavia. He didn't made it with any intention. Many languages write Yugoslavia with J in their language, so its a usual misspelling mistake. Its like writing Tokio instead of Tokyo. I see no point in leaving Tokio or Jugoslavia if there isn't any reason for it, just an unintentional mistake by the author of the source. FkpCascais (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see that I'm not the only one objecting to your actions. If the source has it wrong, you do not simply copy the error, you correct it. In both cases it's perfectly clear what the correct names are. Fnorp (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

KLM (& AF) connections from Ottawa Rail Station

This is KLM's home site in Canada: https://www.klm.com/home/ca/en
I don't know whether it's accessible from other countries.
Click the "From" dialogue box - and Ottawa Rail Station (XDS) will drop-down.
The code XDS doesn't work at all websites, but it certainly works at KLM & AF sites!
KLM & AF provide bus connections (separately!) to and from YUL. Usually for $0, but not always.
Let me know if this isn't enough.
Peter
PMJzz (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Airlines serve airports, not train stations. Take to WT:AIRLINE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that airlines serve passengers! And a smart airline will pick up / drop off passengers wherever they want to start from or go to. So, as smart airlines, AF & KLM serve Ottawa in this manner. The buses even have flight numbers! Did you check my link?
I added this info in good faith to help anyone who happens to visit this page. This is the first time - to my knowledge - that anyone has treated any of my contributors in this manner. I'm reluctant to re-add it without some assurance that my work won't be removed again.
PMJzz (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It will be removed, actually. If for any given reason an airline picks you up at a hotel, will you say that the airline serves that hotel and add the name of the hotel in the article? I don't think so.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Busiest routes from an airport

Hi there. M.soumen keeps adding the list of busiest international routes and their stats on Indira Gandhi International Airport. As far as I remember, there was an agreement not to add these somewhere about 3-4 years. Are these really relevant? I also see that this user keeps adding whatever they like to the article. Could you pitch in here? — LeoFrank  ^Talk 13:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

so

what s wrong? There is a Codeshare agreement on the Seoul- New York - Ezeia and Seoul - Sao Paulo - Ezeiza sector and not only on the ICN- JFK - ICN and ICN- GRU- ICN sector.!

you read this article I can show you again here

http://www.aeropuertosarg.com.ar/2015/03/aerolineas-argentinas-firma-acuerdo-de-codigo-compartido-con-korean-air/

Aerolíneas Argentinas informó que ha firmado un acuerdo de código compartido con Korean Air en las rutas Seúl – Nueva York – Buenos Aires y Seúl – San Pablo – Buenos Aires, el cual empezará a tener vigencia desde el próximo 25 de marzo.

De esta manera Aerolíneas Argentinas podrá comercializar como propios los vuelos de Korean Air entre Nueva York y Seúl y los que unen San Pablo con Seúl, y Korean Air hará lo mismo con los vuelos de Aerolíneas Argentinas entre Nueva York y Buenos Aires y entre San Pablo y Buenos Aires.

Korean Air posee dos vuelos diarios entre el aeropuerto Incheon de Seúl y el aeropuerto JFK de Nueva York operados en aeronaves Airbus A380-800, mientras que a San Pablo vuela tres veces por semana con escala en Los Ángeles, operando aeronaves Airbus A330-200.

Aerolíneas Argentinas opera 29 vuelos semanales entre Buenos Aires y San Pablo y un vuelo diario entre Buenos Aires y Nueva York.

Este es el primer acuerdo de código compartido que Aerolíneas Argentinas firma con una línea del sudeste asiático, y se suma a los la compañía ya posee con Air France, KLM, Air Europa, Gol y Etihad.

Korean Air tiene actualmente códigos compartidos con 29 aerolíneas en 189 rutas a nivel internacional, incluyendo a las compañías Air France, AeroMéxico y China Southern Airlines.