User talk:Andrewgprout

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

^{[non-primary source needed]}

Taiwan

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

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).

Taika Waititi

Hi there. May I ask why you reverted an expansion of the short description? KyleJoan^talk 03:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WMO identifiers in Airport infoboxes

Take it up at Template talk:Infobox airport (and notify WT:AIRPORTS if necessary), instead of engaging in a disruptive WP:POINT campaign of removal of WMO identifiers which are listed under location identifier alongside the standard IATA / ICAO / FAA. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to remove a valid template parameter. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I have been the only one to begin any semblance of discussion, you should be wary of projection such as this templating, lest there be a repeat of this situation: false claim of no 3RR by self, subsequent edit warring block. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. Eti15TrSf (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi (sic)

The page says it is common usage, not the only usage, the link provides sufficient evidence that when people say kiwi in general they mean the fruit. It is not Wikipedia place to "correct" common usage, and linguistically preservationists are looked down upon, Descriptivism is a much more academically correct approach.. Weather this is the preferred usage among "high quality sources" is not not pertinent to the question. as the text never purported that Kiwi should be used in a more formal setting, though i can show plenty of citations demonstrating its usage in more formal settings. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@192.26.8.4: unfortunately I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to tell me.Andrewgprout (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert was not correct per Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME. Also "in high quality reliable sources it is more often called Kiwifruit worldwide" is not pertinent. The statement only said that it is often called kiwi as well. This was not grounds for a revert.192.26.8.4 (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of misspelt AIr Auckland

Hi. You've proposed AIr Auckland for deletion because "This page is a misspelling. The content of this page should be at “Air Auckland” which is currently a redirect". Did you mean to instead propose Air Auckland for deletion, so that AIr Auckland can then be renamed to "Air Auckland"? That would qualify as a Speedy WP:G6 Technical deletion. Nurg (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nurg: Yeah Nah - and thank you for the advice I'll do the speedy deletion thing as described - that is the effect I was requesting. Unfortunately the page has subsequently been moved to the inappropriate Air Auckland (Flight Hauraki) via the even more inappropriate Air Auckland '(Flight Hauraki). I suspect simply Air Auckland is the appropriate place for this content. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, someone has been making rather a mess. I have left a note on their Talk page at User talk:Ovaron#Flight Hauraki. Nurg (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Air Florida Flight 90

How about we just use both images? Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unproductive Editing Reversals

Good day,

I have noticed a common trend amongst your edits & reciprocal complaints of such on the matter of full & unequivocal editing reversals which overturn swathes of information due to a lack of sourcing in certain parts. Users can find this incredibly frustrating. Actions like this are not productive in the sense that they can overturn a majority of correct information for the sake of removing a slightly incorrect or unsourced part of information. Wikipedia thrives on users contributing information, not on users deleting vast information for the sake of minority info which may be seen as dubious at face-value. This is why we have items such as [citation needed] to reflect the state of requiring more.

Fcjh (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)fcjh[reply]

@Fcjh: perhaps - but the prime responsibility is yours to back everything you write with references. That is what WP:BURDEN says it is not enough to know something is true it must be WPV verifiable. If you and others find this frustrating you have the solution at hand. Continuing to add unreferenced detail to pages becomes disruptive very soon and if unchecked could lead to blocked from editing. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]