Jump to content

User talk:Andrewgprout/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Andrewgprout, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Stuartyeates (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverend Seymour Mills Spencer

I have converted your article into a re-direct as it contained nothing other than a straight copy from the Pink and White Terraces page. However, he probably does merit a separate biographical article. On a quick Google, I see this article which gives a lot of information which could be incorporated into a biography. There is also this which might help. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again - I have undone the re-direct so that you can create a full biographical article. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Boeing 737 operators, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Air 2 There

If the flights are advertised for sale in a single booking it complies as a route served by the airline even if have 1 or 2 stops between. From the schedules from 1st may the WLG to NSN flight is one stop every wednesday fare of $152 one way. If its not bookable it could not be added in to the list. CHCBOY (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2009 Fiordland earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Air Nelson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Takaka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Aramoana1976.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Aramoana1976.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey

The vast majority of photos on the national Library site are not usable by Wikipedia. If the permission on the photo says: "It cannot be used commercially without permission" then it can't be used on wikipedia without exceptional reasons. You certainly can't give it a CC-a license. Please check the permissions on each photo not the whole website. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Wellington International Airport shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inangahua Junction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nelson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wellington

It's a good question - I think one needs to have it one way or the other. If you wish to claim that Wellington is the world's most southernmost capital (and you may be right), then the link to List of national capitals by latitude should really be removed. That page (when sorted) puts Wellington as No.3 - so to link the two causes a conflict. The link has only been added fairly recently (in terms of the phrase that was there). I would be inclined to remove the link, if you are happy that UK dependencies don't count. They are called capitals without a doubt, so they should be in the list. Maybe the phrase should be something like "Wellington holds the distinction being world's southernmost capital city in a country". But I do think something needs changing - others will spot the ambiguity and one will end up with it being altered every so often. Have a think about it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi,

I work at Brisbane Airport and the awards section you severely trimmed and didn't find 'notable' is actually fact and has the right to be publicly available. It is not at your discretion to play god based on your personal preference so if you would please refrain that would be greatly appreciated. The awards were credited to the appropriate sources so I don't see why you removed the majority of them?

Wikiairport (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

MH17 Talk Page

Hi Andrew, could you sign your post in the MH17 talk page? The way it is it's not clear who wrote what. Thanks. Geogene (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

International Airport

The Good Article Barnstar
Congratulations, International airport, an article you helped in prove as an active contributor amongst the team over at the wikiproject Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement has now been recognized with Good Article status here on Wikipedia. Your contributions among the the TAFI team and Wikipedia as a whole are appreciated. David Condrey log talk 08:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, you may be blocked from editing. Please mind your editing!!! ~Masa_117 ;) — Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Your recent reverts

Concerning your recent reverts in Pacific Islander, please be open to Wikipedian routines rather than asking other to add references where it's not applicable. You can refer the article Dai people: when mentioning some words in certain languages, it's usually good not to add any reference to make the article look better. Imagine if I edit the article Dai people this way:

where [226][227][228]...[280] contain dozens of dictionaries and wordlists for every single Tai languages... Do you think this should be the way we edit Wikipedia? --150.210.231.30 (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I can add some reference to depict how ancient Austronesians are similar to each other, but I do not agree your idea to refer something for every single word we write in this article. --150.210.231.30 (talk)

By the way you have already made two reverts in the article Pacific Islander. By WP:3RR, you can only make one more revert in that article. --150.210.231.30 (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Andrewgprout. You have new messages at Talk:Pacific Islander#Name Ambiguity.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Andrewgprout. You have new messages at 150.210.231.30's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again please instead of imposing a vacant accuse to others, point out the issue you concern in the discussion page. Be a constructive editor. Thank you! --150.210.231.30 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand

Hello, you take the time to read the references that place? do not talk about Australia talk about New Zealand, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanjones5 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

MH17

It should go "reporter interviewed the inhabitants" obviously and I think it's important as yet another evidence that the Zaroschenskoe version was a fake. Kravietz (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Instead of applying knee-jerk reverts to technical edits, you should get educated as to the reasons. The recent revert you did to my minor edit on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was a disservice to Wikipedia visitors. There is nothing wrong with the tooltip preview in Wikipedia; it is working as designed. There is, however, a problem with editors indiscriminately using templates where they're not needed. — QuicksilverT @ 20:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

T Can you then explain to me what was wrong with the templates and why they were changed back to something more inappropriate. Where is this policy written down? If there is a technical problem with a fringe piece of functionality the last thing you should be doing is changing or restricting widely used functionality to meet these technical restrictions - the functionality needs fixed or removed Andrewgprout (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Daniela Montoya

FYI, that title was a redirect to Avianca Flight 52 until the resolution of this RfD. --BDD (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kiwi Regional Airlines

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kiwi Regional Airlines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. John from Idegon (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad User

If you continue to go around deleting my posts, I will do the same to you. For every comment of mine that you delete, I will delete one of yours. Get a life! --Westwind273 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Westwind273's response is obviously out of line, but what is your rationale for reverting these comments without explanation? They're certainly not obvious vandalism, so removing talk page comments is not normally acceptable. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ashill this particular revert was a mistake on my part - this edit was in the middle of a whole list of reverts the said user made to my edits on a number of talk pages. This one must have got in the way, I should have been more careful it seems.  :-) Andrewgprout (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
And there never would have been any problem in the first place, if you had not decided to unilaterally delete these comments last week, without even so much as an explanation. How egotistical of you! --Westwind273 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

TN AKL-LAX

Hi Andrew, We both agree on that the detsination should be included for it follows the guidelines for inclusion. Please join the discussion at WT:AIRPORT#Is_Air_Tahiti_Nui.27s_LAX-PPT-AKL_genuinely_direct_or_not.3F.CHCBOY (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

UA service to AKL (resumes or begins)

I have found a source stating that United served AKL from LAX not SFO (https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29761977/united-airlines-to-resume-auckland-flights/) and I don't know why the source for the route was changed when there was an official press release from United as the source but I have changed it back. Thanks! Citydude1017 (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Air New Zealand may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Airbus A320 family|Airbus A320]] aircraft operate on routes to Australia and the Pacific Islands), and on domestic routes. Air New Zealand's regional subsidiaries, [[Air Nelson]], [[Eagle Airways]]
  • |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed primary topic for Southern Alps: New Zealand

I have proposed that Southern Alps (New Zealand) is the primary topic for Southern Alps. For the proposed move, please see Talk:Southern Alps (New Zealand)#Requested_move_29_November_2015. You're welcome to join in the discussion. —hike395 (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What reason did you revert my addidion

Have you ever known me to make a bad faith edit? If not why did you write in this edit "Reverted good faith edits by PBS ..."? as that implies that you think I sometimes make bad faith edits. -- PBS (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@PBS edits such as this "(Reverted good faith edits by PBS (talk): The atricle in question is not taliking about frace.. (TW)) (undo)" apart from proving I can't spell early in the morning are semi automatic when using the WP:TWINKLE feature. I'm sure the people who created this meant this to mean exactly the opposite to the way you have taken it. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

DRN questions

Howdy. Why did you revert my question at DRN? I wanted to know if the case-in-question was being abandoned. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This was a mistake - early morning big fingers on an iPad without noticing. reverted back.Andrewgprout (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

MAP

Hi Andrew, Thanks for updating the Map on the Auckland airport page I presume it was your effort, much appreciated.CHCBOY (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The same editor Wxkjy who took away your map in September tried to remove it again today. After a bit of discussion he has agreed to keep it on the AKL page as there was no actual consensus on WP Airport talk page that they must be removed from all airport pages. Regards CHCBOY (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Los Angeles International Airport

@User:Andrewgprout No worries... :) EnRouteAviation (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Working animal

Hi, Thanks for pointing the fact that I forgot the reference on my last edit. I translated some of the facts from the French wiki page, but now I see that some information out there was not referenced. Otherwise, I still think that a section on draft animal in agriculture is seriously missing in this article, compared to other languages. So I looked around on the FAO website and found figures with references to correct my post from last week : 11% of the land in developed countries countries is worked with draft animals, 7% by hand, and the 82% left with tractors; while in developing countries 52% of the land is worked with draft animals, 26% by hand, and the 22% left with tractors. [1] What do you think? Corto Malt (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Corto Malt You can't reference Wikipedia itself but you can of course reference the same sources the French wiki is using. One of the reasons I reverted your edits was that some of what you were saying was also being said earlier in the article. I would suggest you try to improve and add to existing text rather than create a new paragraph unless you have something totally new to say. This will create a much more unified result. Good luck with this.Andrewgprout (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the French article is that there was no sources and I hadn't realized it at first! I pointed it a few days ago but since then nobody answered. I agree with the fact that we should first complete paragraphs instead of creating new ones, but here I think that a paragraph on agriculture is missing. There are 3 sections in Specialization of Working animals : Transportation, Searching and retrieving, and Interfacing and organization. I don't think agriculture is counting in any of these three, but I do think that this is a very important part of working animals specialization (way more than Interfacing and organization for example, in terms of number of animals being used for that and of historical importance). But maybe this is a discussion that should happen on the Working animal's talk page. Corto Malt (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e13.htm

Regarding Great Lakes Airlines hubs

I have started a discussion at Talk:Great Lakes Airlines. Please discuss there. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


Air New Zealand

How did you determine my additions regarding Air New Zealand's service to Houston starting in July 2015, including the history behind it not commencing in 2012, were "not necessary"?

Bd64kcmo (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)bd64kcmoBd64kcmo (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bd64kcmo The reference you used did not support your claim - the history bit was about the route not particularly about Air New Zealand which is what this particular article is about. The additions to the Focus city were just simply wrong. If we followed your criteria just about every destination would be a focus city which is clearly silly. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@Andrewgprout

Good day Andrew.

Good catch on the "history bit" which was intended to be about Air New Zealand's delayed entry into the Houston US gateway for several years. I intended to show that affected the airline's profile and standing, as well as their earnings and passenger flux. So although my intention was indeed about Air New Zealand, it turned out to be about United. Duh!

Now, I am looking at the criteria in Wikipedia which defines "focus city" thus: "In the airline industry, a focus city is a location that is NOT a hub, but from which the airline has non-stop flights to several destinations other than its hubs. Other terms with equivalent meaning are "minor hub", "mini-hub", "hublet", "key city", or "base". The term "focus city" was originally used by various US airlines as a marketing term to promote operations at secondary destinations in the 1990s; however, widespread usage has greatly expanded the definition.[citation needed] ". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_city

Admittedly it is not all that clear and it needs a citation, which I have not had time to look into. However, in no way did I, or the Wikipedia criteria, make every destination a "focus city", whatever the exact definition of a "focus city" truly is. Consider Air New Zealand's own website: http://www.airnewzealand.com/, clearly New York, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Honolulu are in large boldface font, with other select US cities listed in the next box. However Auckland to New York and Las Vegas are NOT non-stop routes. Only Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Honolulu are. This is also indicated in Air New Zealand's destination list here in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_destinations. So do we have 6 US"focus cities", 4 US "focus cities", or only Los Angeles as the sole US "focus city"? On their route map, Los Angeles and Vancouver are shown as North American hubs, not the other four, and dozens of other North American cities are shown as destinations. Now wouldn't that make Los Angeles a hub, and make Houston, San Francisco, and Honolulu "mini hubs"? I believe this would fill the definition, albeit a bit unclear, by Wikipedia, wouldn't you? See http://www.airnewzealand.com/schedules/headermap.aspx?countrycode=US&language=EN to see how that map is presented.

In short, arguably Los Angeles and these 5 mini-hubs, vis a-vis "focus cities", should be presented as such. Why shouldn't the Wikipedia article look something like Air New Zealand's own website?

Again thanks for catching that goof I made. I look forward to hearing from you. Have a beautiful day, Andrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bd64kcmo (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Air New Zealand may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of well sourced content

Please do not remove well sourced content like you did on the Metrojet article. All sources agree that this was a bomb/terrorist attack. You need excellent sources if you want to say something else. Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well actually LP, NO - the only certainty here is that the cause is still under investigation, and that is what the infobox has to primarily say. No amount of media frenzy and guessing combined with your particular POV will change this fact. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Pink and White Terraces Page

Hi and thanks for your email on this topic. I'm in position to revise this page as you note. I'm studying your help guide and will attempt an update maybe later today. Having no wish to revert to DOS-type editting, I'll use your new WIMP interface. Here goes. ````ARB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Counterrev11 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

LAX list

Hi, Andrewgprout. That list is the *only* Terminal 2 list directly linked from lawa.org. If you have a better source, post it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Checkingfax your reference is not looking at an official site of any sort - a more or less current list is on the official site but ordered by airline http://www.lawa.org/LAXAirlines.aspx. thanks Andrewgprout (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Andrewgprout. But, that is the site that lawa.org currently chooses to represent their terminal tenants. It is found by a direct link from lawa.org, but I already stated that. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Hi Andrewgprout. Please carefully read WP:Airports's rules for when to and when not to include references for airport destination tables. The only two times when references need to be provided are when a future destination is listed and when a flight will be ending. Charters/cargo sections are an exception, though, as these references are very hard to find and may stay on those tables. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Suppletion

Would you like to tell me what is wrong with marking a single word by making it a link to Suppletion? 110.55.2.211 (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

user:110.55.2.211 because it does not add anything but confusion. I am a native English speaker and do not understand what the link means, "take off" is not an inflected form of anything as far as I can tell. and going to the Link does not help. Linking a general page to a very technical linguistics definition is in my opinion not helping anyone and does not add to the encyclopaedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles International Airport

You've done 4RR, by the way! HkCaGu (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have brought this discussion to the article talk page. TravelLover37 (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @TravelLover37: Thanks! 172.58.41.254 (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Orlando

Hello Andrewgprout,

I have restarted the discussion about the long-going "Orlando airports" issue at WT:Airports. Your thoughts and opinions on the matter would be greatly appreciated! The discussion is here. Regards—172.58.40.42 (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

AKL Map

Hi Andrew, One anonymous editor has removed your destination map from the Auckland airport page. Until a consensus is made for its removal on the talk page it should remain as no agreement for its removal has been obtained. So I will revert the edit as its a very usefull map and its been updated. Regards.CHCBOY (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Light Between Oceans (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marlborough. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


September 30 2016

Hi. Thanks but isn't today September the 30 2016? I have removed the flight that mentioned as Fukuoka Airport-Shangai ends today but I've still notice that its been added in. 33aircharter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Eck (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources on Running Routes

I see you are reverting many users edits on many pages for removing sources. Per guideline #10, the sources are implied by airline timetables, easily found online, as putting a source on every destination is cumbersome and causes clutter. There are THREE circumstances when you should add a source, as stated on WP:Airports:

1. The route is begining, ending, or resuming
2. There are no timetables avaliable for the airline
3. The route(s) have been frequently challenged

Source: "10. For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included."

None of these are the case on the Singapore Airport page and thus I removed the sources. I left the source on the Chongquing Airlines box though, because there is no timetable to verify this route, so in this case the source is very necessary. If you have a problem with this precedent, you should discuss in on WP:Airports, rather than taking it upon yourself to revert anyone who removes the sources. There is a reason that so many users are making this change, and I hope you are able to realize that there is a reason we are all trying to change this.

I hope I am not sounding to condescending and I am aware that we are both frequent aviation editors. I see AirportUpdater has also left you messages about this, whom is a very active aviation editor, please take note of what other are saying when you are reverting a lot of edits. So please bring this up on the WP:Airports talk page if you disagree, but for now the sources should be removed since they as stated "an explicit reference is not normally included." Stinger20 (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


Stinger20 Thanks and Yes I sort of understand all of that - I can see why there are many entries contained in destination lists that don't have specific references by using the above policy - however I fail to see how this justifies actually removing existing references. WP:AIRPORTS can not counter the requirements of two of the core principles of Wikipedia, if someone has gone to the trouble of referencing something just because supporting information is easy to find off wiki is not good enough for it's removal (in fact go a bit further down that road and there be dragons). Andrewgprout (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Again at Stinger20 and maybe User:33aircharter. Is this some of the previous discussion of which you talk - the discussion here is pretty much why I think it is very very dangerous for such wholesale deletion of references as I am seeing from you guys.

[[1]]
[[2]]
[[3]] "You can/should NEVER write that references are not needed, or that they can be removed. The project has to follow the wikipedia policy, and WP policy states that everything must be verifiable, and that everything likely to be challenged must be sourced, and a source must be provided when someone challenges it. In other words, any editor can add a [citation needed] to a destination, or to all of them, and if you don't add a reference they will delete it. That is the policy, and there's nothing you can do to change it."
[[4]]

Andrewgprout (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Andrewgprout I have no problem with sourcing destionations on airport pages, my main concern is consistency across all airport pages. It does look odd that some destinations have sources while others do not, and I think it would look ridiculous (and time consuming) if we put a ref on every flight destination. I think this is a good discussion topic, as I think maybe putting timetable sources on the actual airline name might look better. The purpose of WP:Airports is to keep consistncy across all airport pages, so that is my goal, I am not going to push this very much, as I really do not have strong feelings as long as all airport pages do the same thing. Looking around, it appears that the U.S. airports do not have refs on any destionations, while many Asian/European airports have them in seemingly random places. This is for sure a problem that they are not consistent and I would encourage ideas on how to include sources systematically rather than whenever someone feels like adding a ref to a random destionation(s). Stinger20 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Stinger20 So if I understand you correctly you are only deleting references because they make pages untidy - that is certainly not ever a valid reason. I am also failing to understand your comments on consistency - the use of references is well defined in Wikipedia and I can not see how taking references off entries makes anything more or less consistent. Also it seems you have this overwhelming consistency goal in your editing - what Wikipedia documentation are you basing this goal on because I don't think I have found such a goal. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Philippines AirAsia CEB-SIN-CEB

Wow, you did really remove/revert the edits on MCIA and Changi Pages. Here is the source. AirAsia Singapore Cebu Service
Please add/update them accordingly, with all due respect. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.66.75.172 (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hainan Airlines data update

Hello,Andrewgprout. 

I am a fleet planning engineer of Hainan airlines. My data of Hainan Airline's fleet is accurate. Thank you very much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clement Ma (talk • contribs) 06:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Clement Ma - Then you should be able to find a published reference to back up your entry - please read WP:V. I'm sure you are right but these rules are designed to prevent people just making things up and adding it to the encyclopedia.  :-) Andrewgprout (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Please do not go against well-established consensus by reverting other editors' edits that abide by consensus. Please see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sunnya343✈ you are the one deleting valid references - You need to stop doing that. References are a critical and important part of Wikipedia and must be maintained. Andrewgprout (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You are the one going against consensus - I don't know why you refuse to engage in conversation building. Whether or not the guideline at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is wrong, it has been consensus for several years, and your freely going against this consensus is disruptive. Please note that you have violated the WP:3RR as well. I will be bringing this conversation to a higher level, as the ones at WT:AIRPORTS never "take off". I hope you can actively participate. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Lets talk LGA and EWR

LGA: I removed the source because once a route starts, just like any other route, we use the airline's schedules as a source (see WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT #10). If you disagree with this, then you should start adding sources for every single route listed on every airport page.

EWR: We have never required a citation for a route ending as long as it is ending in the airline's schedule. Again, if you disagree with this, you need to add a "citation needed" to every single route that is beginning or ending that doesn't have a source. The reason you won't do this is because a quick check of the airlines websites shows, in at least these two cases, that LGA-BOS is running on JetBlue and Southwest's EWR-LAS is in fact ending.

I hope you understand my point as seen by my two most recent edits at LaGuardia Airport. That said, I am interested to see your response. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Evidently you've had this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports regarding your disruptive editing, perhaps I'm not the one vandalizing and rather you're the vandal here. Look forward to your response. Regards. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have broken the Three Revert Rule at McCarran International Airport. Please work to build consensus before making further edits that do not abide by consensus. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


háblame please count my edits of McCarran International Airport this morning - and if you still think I broke 3RR you had better report me Andrewgprout (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andrewgprout (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is more in inquiry rather than unblock me now but - Did I breach 3RR here? I am not aware that I did. Every single edit I made was to revert reference removal and or to add cn tags, such removal of my edits in this case appeared to me to be vandalism as I can not understand how such wanton removal could be justified as a simple content dispute. I did attempt to enter into talk page debate with this user but I suspect it hit an edit conflict and was not saved as it is not there now nor in the history. thanks Andrewgprout (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for WP:EDITWAR, not WP:3RR. That you are concerned with the exact number of reverts you have made means you carefully attempting to avoid 3RR, which is good, but you were still edit warring. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

helm Vs. steer

@Andrewgprout: we are *way* past dictionaries here. helm is correct, but it is not used in maritime etiquette or in any of my 100+ book bibliography on sailing history.

recommend revert.signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 18:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Donan.raven: I have made a note of this on the article talk page [[5]] Andrewgprout (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I am not going to engage in edit wars with you (as I see you have been doing above), but an invalid source is an invalid source. YOU added a source that did not give any indication that the flight was running and thus the source was not applicable to the page, I was simply reverting your incorrect edit. You then added for the second time the same incorrect edit, it was YOUR decision to either find a better source, keep the route as it is obviously running just like every other destination, or challenge the route by removing it. This was not my responsibility.

I did not remove the source because I do not like sources in the table, I removed it because it was invalid for that fact. You are editing without even checking to see why others are doing what they are doing. Continuing this behavior will lead to more warnings about disruptive editing and blocks. Stinger20 (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Andrewgprout. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Canberra Airport

Hi Andrew, There has been a lot of editors putting Qatar Air to Doha without an exact start date I have reverted it several times but they keep putting it back in. If you have time you could monitor the page as they don't seem to get the message that it needs an exact date. With the reference saying 2017-18 Regards CHCBOY (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

LAX removal of 1956 crash

Not to sound like a jerk, but you removed my reference to a 1956 crash over the Grand Canyon. Both planes took off from LAX. If you want to get technical, "On October 26, 1944, WASP pilot Gertrude Tompkins Silver" should also be removed because that plane took off from LAX and disappeared. the actual crash / ? did not happen on the airfield. There is also a reference to the Sept. 11 planes that were enroute to LAX from the East coast. There are several other references to off field crashes and collisions with planes headed to LAX or from LAX. If there is anything "special" about this crash, this was the first air crash that killed over 100 people at one time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caryeastwood (talk • contribs) 09:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Caryeastwood: There is a very good page on Wikipedia about this crash: 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision - simply put the fact that both airliners took off from LAX may be important to that article - but the crash is not really important to the LAX airport article at all. You are right that there are other entries in the list that should not be there, and there is nothing special about me deleting this particular one other than it was the one I noticed. One of the things about editing Wikipedia is that it is often much better to make changes one at a time rather than big massive edits - particularly when removing stuff as this makes it easier for such edits to be challenged, and this is what I was doing here. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Airlines and destinations tables

Hello, hope you are doing well in the wake of the Kaikoura earthquake. You said earlier that you wanted to have an RfC on the Airlines and destinations tables and were thinking of what question to pose. I developed an argument against them that you can read here. What are your thoughts? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to contribute, I have started the RfC here. Regards. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

CVG

@Andrewgprout: Stop your disruptive editing, you are going against everything you "claim" you are about by suggesting that you need to source removed information. I am challenging these route on the basis there is no proof that the routes are running. I checked FlightAware and there have been no flights on these routes in months. I mean, come on, if a route is unverifiable, you remove the route, not the other way around. Also, you reverted on of my edits that fixing some terrible grammar, misuse of Twinkle, as you did not specify why you changed it, YOU MUST EXPLAIN GOOD FAITH REVERTS IN TWINKLE, IT IS FOR VANDALISM ULESS YOU EXPLAIN YOUR WHOLE EDIT. For that alone you could be blocked from editing. Finally, you are welcome to count the # of destinations listed in the table, its 56, so I do not know what kind of reference you want, so thats the only think that is "unverifiable" as you state. I am getting really tired of your disruptive editing and you will be blocked for continuing to make such changes in Twinkle. Stinger20 (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

PGD reversion

You've reverted my edit to Punta Gorda Airport (Florida) with the reason "Please do not remove references." Firstly, you've undone additional edits that were unrelated to references (moving three destinations to seasonal, removing one that's stopped running, moving a destination into the correct alphabetical order). Secondly, and it appears you've already been notified about this multiple times, routes that are currently running do not require sources in accordance with consensus. JamesRenard (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

JamesRenard sorry about deleting your associated edits but it is clear that you should never delete valid references and not replace them with another better reference - that is absolutely against how Wikipedia works. Please read the core policies WP:RS and WP:V and maybe WP:PRIMARY if you are confused. Thanks Andrewgprout (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @JamesRenard: "routes that are currently running do not require sources in accordance with consensus" Actually, we are having a big discussion about this here at WT:AIRPORTS, and we appear to be coming to a new consensus. I encourage you to participate in the discussion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


Sunnya343✈ As stated already numerous times by many many people - you can not come up with a local community consensus that is counter to the core policies of Wikipedia without changing those core policies. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Mr Prout, I do not understand. I am having an RfC in order to avoid forging only a "local community consensus." I have advertised this RfC on noticeboards as well. We are actually coming to consensus that a separate references column should be added. Maybe you would understand if you were participating actively in the discussion, rather than constantly telling others off and disappearing for days. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 15:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand Independence from the UK

I believe that the Constitution Act 1986 should be included as the final stage in New Zealand's independence as that was when the UK's power to legislate for New Zealand was completely removed, giving it full sovereignty. If you notice the pages for Canada and Australia, both have similar acts passed around the same time period that also removed the UK's power to legislate for their governments as well. The dates which these acts were enacted are included in the respective country's info box, as the final step in independence from the UK. Thus, I think that my edit should be kept to bring in line with the wiki pages of Australia and Canada, as well as to mark the date of full sovereignty for New Zealand. Thanks. Agent5514 (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Lufthansa at Philadelphia

This has gone way too far with Lufthansa service at PHL. I think it sould be left alone and let it be. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

user:97.85.118.142 it would help if you explained how such transitory information adds to the understanding of the topic and how it is encyclopaedic. You have not done this and without it your additions should be reverted as all they do is confuse. Andrewgprout (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding JFK

Hi. You took my edits on John F. Kennedy International Airport out of context because of my edit summary. But check this discussion. I have pointed out everything in it. AI 102 (JFK-DEL-BOM) flies in same aircraft at least every 3rd day and at maximum, it can fly in same aircraft throughout its journey on consecutive days also. Check FlightRadar24.com this source based on which a user earlier removed Mumbai from destinations. "Misinterpretation" referred to that thing. Vibhss (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Qantas to Sydney

I think the direct destination which Qantas flies to should be Sydney, and not Brisbane. Even through it switches plane, the flight number remains the same for both legs between JFK to LAX and LAX to SYD. However, while the same aircraft is used for JFK to LAX and LAX to BNE, the flight number changes, meaning they are different flights that happen to use the same aircraft. If you look at the Sydney Airport website, it lists New York JFK as a direct destination from it AND the New York JFK website lists Sydney as a direct destination from it. Thanks. --Agent5514 (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Revert in Taiwanese American

Hi Andrewgprout, you had reverted my edit in Taiwanese American. Please show me where the ABT term has been covered? I added it because I didn't see it, and it's an alternate term people use as opposed to ABC. And what specifically qualifies as "not particularly helpful"? Since nobody both within Taiwan and outside would actually refer to Taiwan as the "free area of Republic of China" other than its constitution, and average English readers are not likely to know ROC is Taiwan now, how is "commonly called "Taiwan" not useful? Mistakefinder (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Airline destination sources

Hello there, as you refer to WP:AIRPORTS when reinstating deleted sources, please also read its subsection WikiProject_Airports/page_content. There you can find the following statement regarding the destinations section: "10. For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included.". This is why we do remove refs from all of these lists once routes have started so please refrain from undoing our maintenance affords. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.191.142 (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

user:83.171.191.142 nothing in Wp:AIRPORTS says you should delete existing references, existing references can exist because someone has taken the opportunity to better reference a fact, or often because a fact has been controversial and the reference has become required Removing such references is against theWikipedia core policies including WP:V. Andrewgprout (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss this at the aviation portal as it is currently our policy to remove sources from the lists which is also supported by the admins. I do see your point, but we practice it otherwise for quite some time. Refs are indeed removed once a route has started, they are only added when a currently listed destination is in dispute. This is why none of our well-maintained airport articles (e. g. those of major airports, especially in the US, the Middle East and Europe) have sources in the destinations list, this is also done to avoid overcrowding reference lists. Best regards.

UA ORD SIN

Stop reverting my edit! United's flight from Singapore to Chicago is a direct flight. UA timetables show that it is the same flight number with no plane change. 107.77.237.174 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

User:107.77.237.17 WP:BURDEN always applies Andrewgprout (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Source added already stating that United serves Singapore from Chicago-O'Hare with a stop in Hong Kong. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

thank you for adding the sourceAndrewgprout (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewgprout/Archive_1&oldid=1144718262"