User talk:Andrewgprout/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Newquay Airport

Just because routes have not been launched doesn't mean they are not to be counted. All other airport pages show (begins day/month/year) - please see London Heathrow, Manchester, Leeds-Bradford, Teesside airports etc.

BA - London Heathrow and Eastern - Leeds/Teesside have start dates and links as per the wiki rules. No incorrect information

Therefore I request this isn't removed without a reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanM1997 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

List of countries and dependencies by population

I note you are repeatedly inserting rankings for various places in the infobox. This creates a link to List of countries and dependencies by population and List of countries and dependencies by population density & is intended to reflect the rank on those pages, rather than containing some random number that is unverified & unverifiable. Accordingly I have reverted your edits to Cook Islands and Niue. If you think places such as these should be ranked then take that to the relevant list pages. --Find bruce (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Find bruce: I take exception to you saying "repeatedly inserting rankings". I reverted your edit on two different articles once. Please assume the good faith in those reverts to edits that the logic of is questionable? Please discuss as WP:BRD suggests is a polite thing to do. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Assuming good faith simply means acting on the basis that an editor is trying to help the project, not hurt it. I have not attributed malice to you or questioned your intentions. Good faith does not mean accepting that your edits were were accurate, appropriate or verifiable. Your reference to BRD appears to have missed the point that I had started a discussion as soon as I reverted your edits - there is nothing in the BRD cycle that requires the discussion to be at a specific article, particularly where the edits are at different articles. I agree that the Cook Islands and Niue are not dependencies of New Zealand, but they are not fully independent either- their current status as somewhere in between is conveniently summarised at United Nations General Assembly observers#Present non-member observer states

The Cook Islands and Niue, both states in free association with New Zealand, are members of several UN specialized agencies, and have had their "full treaty-making capacity" recognized by United Nations Secretariat in 1992 and 1994 respectively. The Cook Islands has expressed a desire to become a UN member state, but New Zealand has said that they would not support the application without a change in their constitutional relationship, in particular the right of Cook Islanders to New Zealand citizenship.

You have added a source to the claimed ranking of the Cook Islands. This highlights the two difficulties with the rankings you are using - (1) it still is inconsistent with the "not ranked" status in the linked article from the infobox & (2) being ranked the 223rd country implies that there are 222 countries above. The Worldometer list includes places that are clearly not countries, such as Hong Kong (104) and Guadeloupe (176), and places that are controversial as to whether they are countries, such as Taiwan (57) Gibralter (219) and Western Sahara (170). Wikipedia is about consensus as ranking your are using affects multiple articles I will raise the matter for discussion at the list articles. --Find bruce (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

References

July 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sydney Airport. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Heathrow Airport revert

Hello! You reverted me at Heathrow Airport stating that the previous version was established, but looking back through the article history, the location being London, United Kingdom, rather than London, England, UK is the established version - I was just reverting back to that syntax whilst WP:BOLDly agreeing with a couple of other minor edits (primarily removing a couple of non-notable links) that had been made in the previous revision. Just wondering what the logic was? Thank you! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@OcarinaOfTime: yeah sorry, I have already reverted my edit, mistook where the established version was. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

This image has been nominated for deletion

File:British Airways Boeing 777 at Amritsar Airport.jpg

British Airways Boeing 777 at Amritsar Airport

under copyright violation and see this discussion with administrator at July 2020 section

Ktdk (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

God Save the Queen Audio Sample

Hey, you reverted the edit I made which was adding the God Save the Queen audio sample (on New Zealand) as it was not relevant to New Zealand and already had a link to a page containing it, I find that a bit odd as it is relevant as it is still both our national and royal anthem, in addition to this it improves accessibility. --Cairo2k18 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cairo2k18: Cairo - it is often best practice to follow the WP:BRD process when someone reverts your edits. There usually is a very good reason they have done so and discussing it is almost always worthwhile. Note that BRD is not BRRD which is what you did. I still think it is questionable that the audio file is particularly appropriate to this particular article. It is already included on the specific linked anthem article. WP:SAMPLE says "Properly uploaded music samples should only be added to articles in which the song or a particular aspect of it is discussed and referenced." discussed is the most important word here. It really would be best to leave the audio samples to the specific article on the anthem.Andrewgprout (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: My apologies, I have decided to undo my changes, thank you for making me more aware on WP:BRD and WP:SAMPLE. Cairo2k18 (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk page archive?

Hello Andrew. When I just visited your talk page, I see you have too many messages with over 200 messages total that made this page too long to read through, so how about you can archive this talk page to reduce your page size? --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 18:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Taika Waititi

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Air Florida Flight 90

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

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

@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)

Cargo

Hi there Andrewgprout,

three links are added, take a look better. Air Serbia Cargo is an independent division with own employers, director is Veselin Djordjevic. Flights / routes are not the same as for passengers,. Please stop removing content that is clear and sourced. No, the routes have nothing with the passenger routes, as they have their own schedule. Only scheduled, regular routes are added.

The company is an independent division taking care of only cargo flights , same as Turkish Airlines or some other companies.

it is not clear and sourced - none of the links actually say what you are making them out to say. As said before the first one is just a list of cities they can send cargo to Air Serbia does not serve Auckland for instance and it is on the list. The linkedin one is not reliable, social media sites are rarely reliable, and the other might be saying anything. so the additions are not varifiable. Please take a long hard look at your entries and understand they and you are hurting the encyclopaedia and this could easily ultimately end up with a block to editing. 19:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

They all say the same, the first one is not totally updated probably, but on the rest of them it is clear what kind of company it is and what cargo flights they operate. However, you have the right to discuss and to have own opinion, but who you think you are to threat someone about blocking??

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Strikeout text

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Strikeout text in article. Thanks. MB 00:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

San Diego Airport

You revered my edit to the San Diego airport as "unimportant", but wouldn't it be valuable if residents of that city knew when international flights were resuming there? I don't see the problem if it is correct and the source (for the Lufthansa flight) is correct or updated at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJHunt25 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@MJHunt25: because Wikipedia is not a directory and this is directory type information, also one of the edits was not referenced at all, and the other was only referenced to an online timetable. Deriving stop and start dates from an online timetable is essentially Original Reasearch and Synthesis. You are required to supply sensible secondary references for such information. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense about not being a directory or original research. I could publish my results in a blog and then link to that, theoretically (if I understood you correctly). However, this would not be consistent with some of the other "Resume" text for airports I've seen, even on this page. Take the seasonal flight to Zurich for example - that source is currently linking to their flight schedule page as well, which is what I did for Lufthansa. Thanks for explaining this though - I'm starting to look into helping edit wikipedia more but appears I have some learning to do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJHunt25 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Saudia Flight 163

The accident report reads[1] in part= 'Factors contributing to the final fatal results of this accident were(1)the failure of the Captain to prepare the cabin crew for immediate evacuation upon landing, and his fail-ure in not making a maximum stop landing on the runway with imme-diate evacuation,'....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sock of Fly787?

Hey Andrew, I find something fishy with Sayswalk and Ashraaay. Possible sock of Fly787? — LeoFrank  ^Talk 09:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Windhoek Airport

Excuse me, since when is the addition of sources to destinations or the removal of a spam link unencyclopaedic? Please be more careful when restoring edits as you undid several ones which are fully in accordance with our guidelines. One can discuss about the note regarding suspended routes, but clearly not the six other edits I made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:3A63:1501:ED9C:7584:BDE0:F9E3 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

San Francisco International Airport

Hello there!

As I edit in the wikipedia page San Francisco International Airport, Isacra121416 remove the three headings in the previous edit revision (===). So, that's why I edited it because it's messed up a little bit. Thank you! Apple 3002 (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference-IndiGo Summer Schedule Flights

Hey Andrew,

      I am adding all the new flights announced by IndiGo for the summer schedule 2021 by manually verifying from IndiGo search engine from multiple airports. I've already added contributed by adding more than 30 flights (as you can verify from my historya) I've been able to found and I am trying to gather more information. I am adding because I've seen many senior editors like User:FlyJet777 add flights this way without need of a reference,especially if it is a regular domestic schedule flight. All of those flights which I added I verifiable by official search engine. This message is regarding your recent edit to Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport summer schedule flights. I request you to please verify from official booking engine. These are not search flights. Also, How will I be able to provide reference for all the other flights I've added.

I am also attaching details of the flights I added for your reference- You can individually verify too

Goa Amritsar, 6E 6065, 23:55-02:45, Daily Amritsar Goa, 6E 6064, 22:55-01:50, Daily

Amritsar Chennai, 6E 478, 16:15-21:05,Daily Chennai Amritsar, 6E 477, 07:45-12:40, Daily

Hyderabad Amritsar, 6E 448, 14:05-19:30, Daily Amritsar Hyderabad, 6E 453, 8:25-13:30, Daily

I would again reiterate that I fight for neutrality and unbiased behaviour in this platform. I request you all to please have trust on me and support me to contribute to wiki, At time I would require your assistance as I am still learning. Thus, I would also request you to help me add these flights and help retain the other flights which I have added. These are in no way false flights. Regards. Sayswalk (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

IndiGo Flights

Hey Andrew, Please guide me how I can I provide reference for Cochin-Trivandrum, Trivandrum-Cochin, Agartala-Aizawal, Aizawal-Agartala, Patna-Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar-Patna etc. I see you are removing them but these are not false flights. You can verify them from booking engine of IndiGo or any other platform too. I am new and therefore, still on learning phase. Hope you donot mind. Pardon if any mistake Sayswalk (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sayswalk: I am removing them as they are unreferenced. Booking engines for start and stop dates is extremely problematic you really need a WP:SECONDARY reference for these otherwise WP:OR is suspected. It is simple if you can't provide a reference don't add the detail - that is a general and unremovable concept on Wikipedia. see WP:V. In my opinion a timetable entry is probably enough for adding that the flight exists. It is the dates that in these cases that are unsupported and just not adding these would probably see the actual entry remain unchallenged. Remember this is an encyclopaedia and not a directory, that means that there is no requirement to list every possible entry possible nor (perhaps bizarrely) even be particularly accurate to each flight's exact current status. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewgroupt: Thank you for your guidance. Appreciate it. From what I've realised, I will try to find to WP:SECONDARY reference for all of these flights before adding them. I would still have 1 query which I wish to ask-

For some flight from X to Y, if a WP:SECONDARY reference is not available, but bookings are open from a particular date, Will that be fine if I add that destination without a start date. (My doubt being would not be disambiguation given the fact that flight has not started yet, but we've still added it). My question in this case is Should I add this without a start date giving reference of booking engine or leave it otherwise?  Sayswalk (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Condor to Xian

Please refrain from re-adding Xian to Condors destinations. The coresponding press release from December is outdated. The route ceased after few runs in January and Xian is neither listed in the new schedule I provided nor on Condors website - if you try to enter it the message reads „we do not fly to Xian“. As you keep ignoring up to date sources I informed an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:1077:4A01:54A4:8BCB:BF64:7099 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to join discussion about Air bubble flights

You are invited/requested to join a discussion on talk page of User:LeoFrank, the link is attached as follows: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LeoFrank#Regarding_removal_of_BBI-KUL_Air_Asia_Flight Sayswalk (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Correction fleets

Hi! As you edit in Delta Air Lines their fleets, yes you are right. But as you can see, in Delta Air Lines fleet page, current fleet, it have 764 total fleets as I used the calculator to see if is correct. :)))) Corner2002 (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of flight route dates

Please stop removing properly-formatted dates from airport destination lists. The template explicitly recommends their addition and an accepted format, and your rationale of WP:NOTDIR does not apply in these cases. If you wish to change this, you may be best served by opening a section on the template talk page. AtomCrusher (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@AtomCrusher: some diffs would be useful. Please remember that many of these dates are for things that have not really stopped, or are unreferenced. It is highly questionable that such dates are particularly encyclopaedic - Wikipedia is not a directory and that applies everywhere. A local essay does not trump such core consensus of what Wikipedia is not. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: I've added a couple of diffs below. These are referenced dates, and I presume that you objected to the addition of those dates rather than lack of referencing, per your edit summaries. As I said, WP:NOTDIR does not apply in these cases; these are not directories. Again I suggest discussing the template's goals on the relevant talk page if you wish. I note that you have removed "(suspended)" entries, which I agree with; they should not be in the tables if they are not active or have no definitive timeline for them being so. -- AtomCrusher (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dubai_International_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1008595697

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Detroit_Metropolitan_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1008588332

Moriori Genocide

Hey mate, just wanted to say I can assure you that the photo of the Moriori Genocide you removed was definitely not of Armenians killed during the Armenian Genocide. I copied and pasted the template for the info box on the Armenian genocide before changing it entirely to suit the Moriori genocide, so maybe you thought it was a photo of Armenians from there. But, yeah, I can assure you that your good faith edit was misguided.--Aubernas (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aubernas: Photography did not really exist in the 1830s especially in New Zealand or at this quality - nuff said. Do a reverse lookup on google or Tineye.com. You will find the original source of the photo as Armenian there. Armenian also fits the style of clothing and physical features better also. If you found this on a website the says it is Moriori perhaps you should also question some of the other details found there also. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop reverting service resumption dates

You reverted two edits here on Montréal–Trudeau International Airport and here on St. John's International Airport and provided the following reasons: "Unnecessary unencyclopaedic content" and "Wikipedia is not a directory". These are not sufficient reasons to revert these edits. As you will see on the Montreal Airport article, service resumption dates are provided for numerous airlines. Similarly, on the St John's Airport article, service resumption dates are also provided for another airline. Please stop reverting these edits - it seems like this has been a consistent issue based on a review of your talk page. Regards, TribunalMan (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@TribunalMan: your edits are just creating needless work, the entry is there already, it does not need nor is it encyclopaedic to add such transitory "resumes" information. Wikipedia is not a directory it is an encyclopaedia that is exactly enough reason to revert. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

For much of the same reasons articulated by AtomCrusher above, WP:NOTDIR does not apply here. Before referencing Wikipedia policy for reverting edits, please bother to read it first. I invite you to point to one of the enumerated grounds in WP:NOTDIR to justify your reversions. More than one editor has pointed this out to you. I don't think the problem is us. Regards, TribunalMan (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You saying WP:NOTDIR does not apply does not make it so i'm afraid. There are much better ways you could contribute to Wikipedia than such pedantic adding transitory detail that is agains Wikipedia's core concepts. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You are the one unnecessarily and needlessly reverting edits. You cited Wikipedia policy - the onus is on you to show how it applies. You've failed to do so. There are much better ways for you to contribute to Wikipedia than unnecessarily and needlessly reverting edits, ostensibly relying on and citing Wikipedia policy, but yet unable to justify its application. Regards, TribunalMan (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Complain of adding or removed pictures of Airlines?

Hello!

Can I ask if someone will add pictures of an airlines in some Airport pages like Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminals section, cause it's really not needed to add some of pictures of an airlines. And it's also really odd that the caption add the IATA like for example "PR1890, a Philippine Airlines bound to DVO", (just an example). So, my real question and complain is: Is it really necessary to add two or more airline picture in one section? Thanks for your time! Corner2002 (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Corner2002: I am having trouble understanding what you are asking, but if I understand you right I think my answer is that illustrations on Airport pages should like all pages on Wikipedia be representative of what is being discussed. Random pictures of aircraft almost certainly do not fulfil this criteria, an aitcraft at the gate possibly, the inside of the terminal probably. Hope this helps. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes.. that's what I mean is.. :))) Corner2002 (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello.. one of the user User:Red Flavor added back the aircraft picture of the wikipedia page Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 2 and Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3. What should we do anyway? He also mentioned that User talk:Red Flavor will blocked me and User:AngstLil too, due to edit war and disruptive edit.. and he/she also said that "you little standard prick", it hurt my feeling. I mean, I don't want to go to sockpuppet. That's why I complain about. Corner2002 (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory

Hello there! Since you said, wikipedia is not a directory, like Narita International Airport, Aeromexico resumes June 2021, when I removing it, and I also said "Removing resumes dates, Wikipedia is not a directory." Someone added it back. And I also agree with you now, that Wikipedia is not a directory. So, can I ask if can I remove it resumes dates and suspended on other airport pages? Corner2002 (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Corner2002: I came back to check on my section above and saw your query here. My rationale I believe answers your question: the template for routes explicitly contains examples of route ending, beginning, and resuming. Other dates can arguably be removed, but it seems this user has made a decision to ignore these in the past. These date styles are in widespread use across the wiki, and whilst status quo is not necessarily rationale for not changing things, this is something that is best discussed on the template page. It is also acceptable for users to revert such changes if they see fit. AtomCrusher (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@AtomCrusher: Yes the templates do allow for start and stop dates. These have always been of questionable value to an encyclopaedia, however they have been tolerated by most because they encourage proper referencing of detail and somewhat control the chaotic nature of these tables. Wikipedia is definately not a directory a directory tries to keep everything up-to-date and comprehensive. That is not and never has been or will be the role of an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia's role is to provide an overview a distillation of facts. That is what WP:TERTIARY means. In the two cases you detailed above both had flights were already included in the tables, it is certainly not normal on Wikipedia to add resume or start dates to an existing listing. This is for the exactly the same reason they were not removed or noted as suspended over the temporary period that this may have been true. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is that Wikipedia does not seek to be "up-to-date and comprehensive"? That's poppycock, and quite clearly is what differentiates this site from a standard paper encyclopaedia. It's also why we have the ability to respond to and detail current events, with caution. Now, I agree that an excessive list of - for example - all of the destinations an airport has served, and their dates when those routes ended, etc. would be wildly out-of-scope. But you appear to be running into a number of fellow editors who disagree with your perspective on this, which itself goes against the intention of the template in question. Again, if you fundamentally disagree with this approach then your best bet is to open a talk discussion on the template, as is the correct community-based approach. AtomCrusher (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: I also agree with you. Cause Wikipedia is for the information or history.. not putting dates like resume June 13, 2021 due to COVID-19 pandemic suspension. Now I realized that why you removing suspensions or resumes dates because Wikipedia is for the encyclopedia purposes only. So, that's why I won't add resumes dates. Corner2002 (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Focus cities

Just an FYI, I am in complete agreement that focus cities shouldn’t be listed, not just on Delta, but any airline. The criteria for an airport to be one is too vague. Unfortunately, I can’t go removing them as it will cause a massive uproar.

This is just one of many problems with airport and airline articles. Another thing that needs to be revisited badly is consolidating mainline/regional into one section on the airline and destination tables, but I can’t get a discussion going on revisiting the issue. Blissfield101 (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Manchester Airport

You deleted all edits which were referenced with accurate and reliable sources. This editing is vandalism of the page and I advise you to recheck your edits before confirming. SeanM1997 (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed alliance name

Hello @Andrewgprout:! I'm currently ask you if I can remove the Alliance name of the airline in Destination section of Codeshares Wikipedia page like Air Astana. Thanks for your response! Corner2002 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Spanish flu edit

Hi Andrew

My edit in the Spanish flu article is consecuence of the discussion in its talk page. [2]. I just wrongly copied the link in my efit summary. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alexcalamaro:I don't see any proper discussion nor consensus there. certainly not a formal rfc as yiu suggest. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC).

Yes, you are right. But so long without any comments I just have go ahead (deleting my own contribution with COVID figures, and AIDS/Black death ref). You can join the discussion there if you have another view about how to solve the Offtopic content of the section : 1)Delete all 2)Leave just flu pandemics 3)Add more deadly pandemics as smallpox 4)keep as it is now, somehow miscellaneous.. Thank you. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Am I going too far?

Hey Andrewgprout,

Quick question, do you believe I go too far on my airport edits? I am simply trying to clean up airport pages and make them more encyclopedic. A certain user is really starting to get cranky with them. Blissfield101 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

So what if he thinks you don't go too far? You make massive changes at once with huge deletions, and when someone thinks some of that content should stay, you refuse to discuss it just because you think it's a disallowed "everything". Lots of it is good, but it's difficult to assess huge reorganizations and removals made at once. Per BRD, you should be explaining the changes on the talk page, not imposing your restrictive format repeatedly. Reywas92^Talk 03:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blissfield101: Sorry for taking time to reply - been busy - I think your work to make many aviation related pages sensibly encyclopaedic is very good. Of course encyclopaedicness comes on a continum and where we place particular detail on that continum is always a balancing act. I do agree with you that much of the over detailed cruft on many aviation related articles needs to be curtailed. I saw the discussion on ANI - I think the note about making sure any RFC is targetted to more than the aviation community for comment is the crux to making such pages more encyclopaedic. There are few areas on Wikipedia that are so "wild west" as aviation articles. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: There is a discussion ongoing right now regarding the Airline & Destination tables. You can view it here. We are also discussing removing the historic passenger number tables as it comes close to WP:RAWDATA. Blissfield101 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Please remember civility is a good thing particularly on someone else's talk page. I just note that your reversions in at least one case were reverted by three unrelated editors - this should give you cause for thought about whether you are being reasonable or not. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Continents

While the person who reverted the change from plural to singular didn't give a source, I don't see that you have one either. The maps and text use the singular, as does the German Wikipedia (In Germany, children are taught that N & S America are one continent, Amerika). Kdammers (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to rename Gimli Glider to Air Canada Flight 143

I'm sorry for what I did earlier but I want to rename the page Gimli Glider to Air Canada Flight 143. Reason being that flight 143 is a straightforward name rather than giving the page a special name For e.g. Air Transat Flight 236 isn't given a separate name i.e. Azores Glider. You can however mention Gimli Glider in Bold and/or insert a redirect. Also, Gimli glider is not exactly a flight number or an incident but rather just a nickname given to a plane whereas Flight 143 is a proper flight number. It is also not true that there are many flights with the number 143. I could only find Philippine Airlines Flight 143. There are also many pages, mostly in the 'See Also' which still state the older name i.e. Air Canada Flight 143 such as the one in Air Transat Flight 236, a very similiar accident. If you are not comfortable with my opinion, you can let me know why in my talk page. If you are satisfied with my response, then please make the desired changes. Thanks! Username006 (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Check

Hello @Andrewgprout:! Please check on FedEx Express history section if my edits were okay, I did added the Expansion section on the history section. Hope my edits were okay if not, you can change it. :)) Thanks in advance! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Bradley International Airport

Hello, @Andrewgprout:! Please do NOT undo edits to Bradley International Airport as they are all confirmed start service dates with referenced articles.

Saturnpilot (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Saturnpilot

Only ONE reference to support your revert (Changi Airport)

Please do not revert, unless you can provide ANOTHER reliable references (not just ONE) to your revert. In the website of BPS.go.id (BRS, Berita Resmi Statistik page), it is clear that since Q2 2020, until NOW, there is no international flight at BPN. International flight was served by SilkAir, and in 2020 it was terminated until now (Read more: https://m.bisnis.com/amp/read/20200305/408/1209676/singapura-tutup-satu-satunya-penerbangan-internasional-balikpapan-penumpang-turun).

PLEASE return to the reliable revision, or I will revert and contact another editor.--140.213.204.237 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry i don't understand whT you are saying. one refernce is all it takes. The detail is referenced. just leave it. Wikipedia is not a directory it is not thae place for such pedantic detail. Also your messsage comes across as a threat that is not a good thing.Andrewgprout (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

'Sorry i don't understand whT you are saying.' Reply (R): Just understand what you are reverting.

'one refernce is all it takes.' R: Is that a NEW Wikipedia policy? One questionable reference of flight that never exist, nobody launch it and no online news about it at all, not even Scoot fleet detected on online radar, not even any of its (ghost) passenger number recorded on government statistic (BPS.go.id) since Q2 2020 until now.

These are some policy of Wikipedia, I don't make them by myself:

• Such sources (Questionable Source-your only one reference) include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Read more: WP:QS

'The detail is referenced.' R: Where.. is the detail? No detail at all. It's just a plan of Scoot in 2018 ('planned changes' in your only one reference) and the name of the city, with NO detail.. at all.

'Wikipedia is not a directory it is not thae place for such pedantic detail.' R: Is that a brand new Wikipedia policy? Or maybe you are 'trying' to make your own policy on Wikipedia. Pedantic? Well, removing flight (wait, it's just a plan according to your source) that never exist is NOT pedantic. Or maybe you want to insert all airline plan in the Airport article, which is not allowed.

'Also your messsage comes across as a threat that is not a good thing.' R: It is NOT a threat, your revert is the threat to all Changi Airport Wikipedia reader, they can't book the flight (that never exist). --140.213.68.169 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY is vey well established and followed consensus on Wikipedia.

So? I am talking about one destination on Changi Airport that never exist/launched, no fleet and no passenger ever recorded, it's just the airline's outdated plan.

So please stop reverting edits, unless you understand what are you reverting. Provide reference to prove your revert. And don't forget to sign your post.--140.213.68.169 (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrewgprout has an issue clearly here; I note your distress to by having verifiable edits reverted. I have noted this, as the user is intent on damaging pages it seems due to personal problems in bothering to check provided references. EireAviation (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pisupo Lua Afe (Corned Beef 2000). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Aubernas (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourced material removal

Hi Andrew, this is I believe the third occasion of incidents like this with you. Firstly, it began at the Lanzarote Airport page that was followed by Cork, this resulted in temporary war-editing on your behalf removing sourced material - I note this ceased. Now we arrive here again, with the same issue. If you have an issue with sourced material information being provided, which is cross-checkable you need to bring this to a forum to be discussed with moderators. I'm flagging this to you directly before I move next to report these edits. They are not constructive, for example you bulk removed edits on the Dublin and Cork pages which I can show to moderators which net-resulted in factual information removal. EireAviation (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@EireAviation: Further to this, you placed synthesis tag for the MCO-MAN service, check the link. This interference with sourced material needs to stop. EireAviation (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@EireAviation: The synthesis tag is a serious attempt at getting you to understand what you are getting wrong. Wikipedia can be a very counterintuitive place so you should listen to what is being suggested to you and not just assume ill will. You are baseing many of your edits on dummy searches against an airline's search engine, this practice is fraught with issues particularly when trying to derive start and stop dates for a service. Please remember Wikipedia is not a directory it is an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedia deal with tertiary information. The stop and start dates of an airline service are at best primary detail and are very questionable here. However assuming an argument can be made for such inclusion the consensus advice at WP:AIRPORTS is that such dates must be referenced, and references ideally should be WP:SECONDARY. There has also been an established consensus that temporary content - like the recent covid induced cancellations and reinstatements are not particularly encyclopaedic and as a rule do not really warrent inclusion. As a rule of thumb I usually think it is not important to add anything to Wikipedia that it would be likely I would have to reverse in six months time, other people will do things slightly differently but that is my level of comfort. Hope that helps. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Back here again, this really is pathetic, an orchestrated to effort by you to discredit edits. You continue to object to verified material being posted, and threaten me (noted) with blocking as if you are some moderator. You have a track record that I have now compiled of removing material, referring to one edit as says who? a really lazy attitude when you couldn’t be bothered to even check the reference, clearly. All the services are verifiable, you like to claim Wikipedia isn't a news source, may I suggest you get busy editing all other airport articles then as this is the correct procedure. Operational verifiable routes are listed with reference, those that aren't verifiable are removed. It's really not that hard to understand. EireAviation (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

A recent personal favorite of mine was where an entire airline was removed in retaliation, which I doubt any reasonable "guidelines" on Wikipedia could ever explain or justify. Evidently no one is immune from guidelines or lack thereof, not even those who preach them, while in addition WP:AIRPORTS itself states, in bold, "Remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article." I wrote something similar about "editing every airport article" under a supposed "logic"; it was later removed with an "explanation" consisting of a bemusing hodgepodge of words that ultimately say nothing (not that it was going to remain on its own for other, unrelated reasons). On a brighter note, I consider this to be relevant in a way that does not require restating or paraphrasing. There, that's my potentially off-color talk page edit for the year, and always hopefully the last. ChainChomp2 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. EireAviation (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Newquay Airport

I can see a potential edit war starting back at Newquay airport w.r.t. a comment that you very rightly made about booking portals not being reliable sources for future flight schedules. Keep an eye out and dive in as you see fit. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually I found what might be a reasonable reference, so it may be a moot point now. --10mmsocket (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Oslo Airport

Hi, I thought we could talk here about our disagreement over the airlines & destinations section of Oslo Airport, Gardermoen instead of just pointlessly reverting each other edits. You keep claiming that my edits are "not encyclopaedic." Resume dates for routes (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) are included in the guide for how airport articles should be formatted (Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Airlines and destinations|here). I do realize that I didn't add sources to some of my additions (I later went and added sources to a few of them), but did you have to revert everything? Even the things that were properly sourced? I don't want to fight about this, but could you please just actually look at all the stuff you're reverting? Sure, some things weren't sourced, and I'm fine with you removing that, but did you have to remove everything else? I'm sorry if I'm coming off as hostile, but it's just that I spent two whole days correcting and adding information to the destinations section to make sure that it was as accurate as possible. Would you be OK with me editing all the stuff that was properly sourced back in (but taking out the few things that weren't? NewYard25 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Manchester airport disambiguation

In case you are unaware, "Manchester (UK)" for the airport in England is used because a certain Manchester–Boston Regional Airport in the US state of New Hampshire is written in airport destination lists as "Manchester (NH)". The disambiguation occurs not only in said lists with both (such as Chicago O'Hare's and Orlando's), but also in various articles with one or the other, including Atlanta's, Baltimore's, or Tampa's, and for various non-US airports such as Barbados' and Montego Bay's (though technically North American and with US services).

While I could discuss the Panama Cities, Portlands, or the more numerous (and notable) San Joses and Santiagos with airports off the top of my head, in this context Montego Bay's airport not only has existing US services, but also northeastern US services in addition to its UK ones, and additionally bore the "Manchester (UK)" disambiguating term under TUI Airways.

I can also flip your edit summary argument and say, "do not assume that because something can be seen on Wikipedia in one place that it isn't appropriate everywhere". Mind you there was the possibility that the parenthesed term was removed from the TUI entry and another editor would restore it under an identical if not similar argument.

Given this context, I propose the disambiguating term remains in the case of the Sangster International Airport article and others like it. ChainChomp2 (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@ChainChomp2: It is normal only to disambiguate if confusion is likely to occur. In this case because one airport is qualified (NH) does not mean the reverse needs to be qualified also. This is the case here. Manchester(NH) is a tinpot operation with very few routes, both TUI and Virgin are well known as British based airlines and it is not unreasonable to suppose that when Manchester is written in relation to a place way more connected to the UK than to NH there the absolute likelyhood is that the context is Manchester UK. The readers who don't get this will probably be confused by the two letter qualification anyway (many people in the world don't understand the difference between ME and OR for example, and NH is a chain of Dutch hotels!) and a solution is only ever a click away. Adding UK in such cases as is being supported here is quite unhelpful. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Andrewgprout and Username006 please STOP!

I noticed that both of you were fighting for an edit in the page of British Airways Flight 9. This was getting on the verge of an edit war. Let's just not do that. Username seems correct and it is rather well known at this point that the flight number was BA009. KlientNo.1 (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC) @KlientNo.: "rather well known" is not a valid concept within Wikipedia.

Nice!

Keep disappearing on the page of Talk:1968 Heathrow BKS Air Transport Airspeed Ambassador crash. 😐 Username006 (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Try to build a consensus

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. I would like to build a consensus surrounding our dispute over Minneapolis-Saint Paul Airport, specifically the availability of Mexican and Caribbean destinations. Please leave a message on my talk page. Your edits will stay until we reach an agreement. PlaneCeiling912 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@PlaneCeiling912: firstly I have made one revert to this page in the recent past - the revert is a valid and expected cosequence of the the bold, revert, discuss cycle. So there is no question of my edit being classed as an edit war. I made the revert because you based your reasoning on slight evidence. The real problem here is much of the detail in the destination tables is at best marginally encyclopaedic - however removing it saying it is not in the timetable for next week is not really an acceptable edit - such churn is not what Wikipedia is about, it is an Encyclopaedia not a directory. How I would deal with these entries if you truely believe that the route does not exist and is unlikely to exist within say the next six months and it is unreferenced - go ahead and delete and simply say it is unreferenced. Any unreferenced detail on Wikipedia can be deleted in this situation and it is not your job to justify this under WP:BURDEN. If it has a referece I would leave it unless it is absolutely obvious it is not current or you have a sensible reference that the route has permanently been abandoned. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

'perished' a euphemism?

Could you clarify how 'perished' is a euphemism? "Suffer death, typically in a violent, sudden, or untimely way" is a far more accurate definition of the pilot's death than simply 'killed'. As an example of other use in Wikipedia is the b-class article The Holocaust, and is apparently acceptable there Strangerpete (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Cork Airport.

Do NOT remove the notice on Cork Airport. Cork Airport is closing to facilitate runway reconstruction. And if you don't believe me have a look at https://www.corkairport.com/news/detail/2021/06/21/major-capital-investment-projects-for-cork-airport Trainsspotter4life (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Trainsspotter4life: I don't take kindly to such threats. Adding this detail to the correct textual section of the article may be appropriate if in an encyclopaedic manner. Wikipedia is not a directory and your additions are purely directory type information in this form. Please stop adding this in this way. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

No Trainsspotter4life (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

And how is that a threat bruh Trainsspotter4life (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Flag icon remove

Despite on this WP:ICON and WP:FLAGS, can I remove the flag icon in some of the airline destination list like List of Vietnam Airlines destinations? Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to multiple wikipedia pages regarding Airports

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to bulk remove content and use WP:RS out of context, as you did at Cork Airport, Dublin Airport, Shannon Airport, Zurich Airport amongst others you may be blocked from editing. EireAviation (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Further to this, your report on the Admin page got nowhere because it has no basis in fact. You are more than welcome to re-submit this material again on the admin page, but your recent contribution of flat out ignoring the sourcing because you can't get your own way is rather disappointing. EireAviation (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

EireAviation Please provide recent diffs of any disruptive behaviour of me "bulk removing content". You're dreaming. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You've done this on numerous occasions, here Miami Airport and here Dublin Airport. Please see Project Airports for discussion on sourcing, as we are dealing with factual information WP:PRIMARY is acceptable where third party refs cannot be sourced. If you have an issue with this, report it again, we see how that worked the last time. Please stop your disruptive editing. You have even seen the material in project airports referred to by me and continue with your juvenile behaviour. EireAviation (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

In fact it is you who is committed to disruptive editing with your campaign to prevent improvements by better sourcing. The Banner talk 10:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

yeah right thought so. One example I had nothing to do with, the other seems mostly uncontroversial. You are going to have to come up with something better than that!

The Banner, honestly where do you find the time to be so ironic. EireAviation (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Where do you find your time to be so disruptive? The Banner talk 11:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki users add value

Hi. On several occasions over the past year you have reverted edits I have made to the Orlando Airport page. You have reverted things to clearly incorrect statements. Sometimes it was because you did not agree with the edit or source. This incorrect information makes Wiki info less reliable in the same way that you claim "unreliable" sources make it non-encyclopeadic.

Wiki is a a community in which users are supposed to make posts better not just police for the sake of policing. I don't mind users undoing things if the information is incorrect, but undoing because you don't like or agree with the source is futile. You could have very easily spent a little time and added to the Wiki community by amending to source the BA timetable.

Reading the comments below it appears that other users have had similar experiences with you undoing edits. Be a good user and make wiki better don't war with people over sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.11.193 (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It is hard to reply without specific examples. But I suspect you should read WP:V. What is "correct" is often not applicable or approprite for adding to Wikipedia. It appears to me that alot of what you are doing is WP:SYNTHESIS via a large dose of WP:OR. I moved your comment to the bottom of my page where it is customary to add new text. Thanks hope that helps. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of incidents noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding possible disruptive editing. Thank you. 90.248.204.187 (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)