User talk:Blissfield101

Welcome

Hello Blissfield101 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Nashville International Airport, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 01:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Blissfield101, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 01:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating regional/mainline carriers on airport pages

Why are you doing this? This was really useful information. Newenglandav (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page at WP:AIRPORTS. There is so much fluctuation between mainline and regional that it is impossible to keep up with, and there is a ton of inaccurate information on the tables. The average person isn't going to care whether or not it is mainline or express. Blissfield101 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating regional/mailine carriers on airport pages without consensus

You opened the discussion on the talk page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports, then went ahead and made the revisions before a consensus has been reached. Stop it. Wait until a consensus is reached before proceeding. 190.128.219.22 (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@190.128.219.22: I didn’t open anything. There was/is consensus until the airline enthusiasts came along and hijacked things. I have yet to see a rational argument that’s in line with Wikipedia policies to support separation. Blissfield101 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blissfield101: The fact that you don't like the opinions of othere doesn't give you the right to go ahead and make these changes. Have some respect for the views and opinions of other editors and participate in a mature discussion on this. Your edits and behavior appear destructive and childish.

@190.128.219.22: The fact is you do not understand core Wikipedia policy, such as WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:V, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:USEFUL. What's childish is you and a few others keep reverting for reasons simply because it's "always been done this way" and "it's useful information", as well as accusing me of sockpuppetry simply because you don't like the edits. The majority are still in favor of this, and the reasonable minded people who understand core Wikipedia policy support the edits. We are here to create an encyclopedia, not a page that satisfies airliners.net users. Sorry if I've been harsh, but that's the reality. Blissfield101 (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass section deletions

You are new here, so understandably you may not realize that Wikipedia does not act like a traditional small-article encyclopedia. There are no restrictions on article length. Please read WP:LENGTH, including this section: "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length; see Wikipedia:Content removal#Reasons for acceptable reasons."

You cannot simply delete sections of text, especially those that are extremely relevant. For instance, the Winold Reiss industrial murals are some of the most famous works of art in Cincinnati if not the entire Midwest, and have innumerous journalism and papers written about them. They deserve decent mention in the airport article. And your removal of pricing information and criticisms makes it seem like you have a COI with the airport, trying to remove anything that looks bad. You need to be careful when removing information critical to the subject.

You also cannot keep edit warring with me here. That is also against the rules, you have to be willing to talk about it. $ɱ$ (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your first and only written warning about your rule-breaking here; any further actions will be taken as disruptive editing and will be reported to administrators. $ɱ$ (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: I know you probably mean well, but you come across as a bit passive aggressive here and make some unfounded accusations (i.e, your removal of pricing information and criticisms makes it seem like you have a COI with the airport, trying to remove anything that looks bad). There is no COI here, the fact is you restored some long since removed information, to which some of it wasn't really relevant to the entire article. Now, your point about the art murals is well taken and I support adding that back in, but the information about former concourses that have since been torn down and pricing is not really relevant to the airport today (most other airport articles do not include this kind of info or it is only summarized). After all, things like WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, etc, apply. I was not removing to reduce length, I was removing because of the aforementioned policies. Airport articles are often cluttered with excessive information that probably isn't necessary to include or at the very least, could be summarized. Some of the information removed was already somewhat summarized in the history section, and if we are to include it, that is where it ought to go.

Also, you really don't have any grounds for reporting to administrators, so don't threaten me with that. I am well aware of the 3RR and edit warring policies. Blissfield101 (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also write about history and art of train stations. I often see how the regular train editors desire consistency in those articles, merely listing its services, track layout, etc. But they are unique structures, each with their own unique history. The same goes for airports. You simply cannot refuse to include how the airport has changed its terminals over time, and how pricing was a huge concern in the 2000s, as one of the most expensive airports in the United States.

On that note, I was not accusing you of having a COI, just stating that mass deletions of criticisms will look like that, so you need to be careful. Another thing COI editors often do is delete history as "no longer relevant"; I could show you some examples if you wish.

As you describe, yes, I agree that the history section should be better-fleshed-out with nearly all of the content in question.

I was on the brink of reporting you to administrators; I can see a long history in your contributions, your talk page, and at WikiProject:Airports of doing things your own way, not following consensus, and other disruptive actions. Please try to work with us here, even if it means putting aside some of your own beliefs.

ɱ

(talk) 14:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austin–Bergstrom International Airport

Wait until ~ what? ~ by the way I reverted your edit ~ learn about sources before you remove one `~mitch~ (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the reasons I gave on the edit summary. Until Delta actually launches Point-to-point flights out of ABIA, it is a spoke, not a focus city. And you realize Delta has a different definition of focus city than what is defined here. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if it is true or not just as long as it is properly sourced ~ and that is properly sourced from a TV station calling Austin as one of delta's focus cities ~ I see you have a 'core' understanding of WP policies ~ so I won't quote them here ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A source that does not quote anyone directly from Delta and is ambiguous about future plans. It borders on violating WP:GOODREFS. Again, please do not add until point to point flying is launched. Thank you. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blissfield101, why are you labeling goodfaith edits vandalism? Please don't do that. Disclaimer: Mitch asked me to review this. On what policy or guideline (or well-used convention) do you base you point-to-point condition on? Is this standard in other airport articles? El_C 21:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: My apologies, I shouldn't have said vandalism. Yes, per the guidelines at WP:AIRPORTS, we have traditionally listed certain airports as a focus city for a particular airline (for hub and spoke airlines that is) if that airline has a decent amount of point to point flying out of the said airport and it has been declared as such by the said airline. Delta, at least with the recent declaration of Austin, Nashville and San Jose, seems to have a different definition than what we define here. It seems they are focus cities in the sense of focusing on growth, and growth can simply mean increasing service to hubs and "official" focus cities, not necessarily launching point to point flights. Not to say they won't in the future, but my point was we should hold off listing them until point to point flying materializes. Otherwise, the list could get very long in due time due to Delta's broad definition. Right now, only Raleigh/Durham and Cincinnati meet the traditional definition.

Also, the KXAN article cited was very ambiguous about Delta's future plans and did not quote anyone directly from Delta. Don't get me wrong, I want ABIA to be a focus city for Delta, but I just wish we'd wait until we hear an announcement on point to point routes. I will gladly add Delta into the focus city section on ABIA's page the day they do announce something. Blissfield101 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blissfield101. I appreciate the thorough explanation. Mitch, is this making sense to you? El_C 22:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @El C: ~ First ~ WP:AIRPORTS ~ is a hundred pages long (almost realistically) ~ so where is the editor Blissfield referencing (a more precise reference would allow me to read the WP:policy) ~ and wonder if I would want to take it up for discussion on that articles talk page ~ second I have already edited on Austin–Bergstrom International Airport's talk page quotes from delta calling Austin a focus city ~ if we have to only rely on quotes from employees from certain companies as the only source it defeats "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" ~ so questioning a source like KXAN-TV ~ saying 'not clear in meaning' (which the station was very clear as Austin being a focus city for Delta) and on the article Airline hub which editor Blissfield referenced (also on the top of the article instead of a clear path to what the editor was referencing) above " And you realize Delta has a different definition of focus city than what is defined here" states in this section here "However, with the term's expanded usage, a focus city may also function as a small-scale or total hub" before I edit/added "or as an opportunity to increase the airlines revenue "based on a strong economic environment"".^[1] ~ my question is ~ specifically in WP:AIRPORTS is Blissfield referencing ~ the source is the source ~ un~debatable ~ then I can continue this discussion ~ sorry for being long winded and ~ also it's nice to meet you Blissfield ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchellhobbs: The "policy" is here, but it is also based off previous discussions at the talk page. I have opened a new discussion on the at the WP:AIRPORTS talk page to discuss the matter further, so we can get more clear advice. Also, apologies if I came across belligerent before. Blissfield101 (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*No problem ~ (we were editing at the same time, belated thanks for opening) I know how important Wiki is to all of us ~ can you quote specifically where you are referencing ~ to me it's how I make friends ~ ever since I was involved in "that accident" I haven't had much use of my arms ~ and I have-had to type with my toes ~ if you want to take the lead on opening a discussion at WP:AIRPORTS ~ I will be glad to join it ~ thanks Blissfield ~mitch~ (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can view it here (scroll down until you see focus_city or ctrl & F and search focus city). Admittedly, it is not very clear cut, but there was discussions previously on the WP:AIRPORTS talk page where it was discussed. I have opened a new discussion and so if you'd like to go over there and participate, check it out. Blissfield101 (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Russell, Edward (June 7, 2019). "ANALYSIS: What makes a focus city for Delta?". FlightGlobal. Retrieved August 7, 2019.

Greetings

	Nice to see you again ~	good thing the Bot keeps me informed ~ it was a simple token
	~ Thanks for your edits on Austin ~Bergstrom ~ maybe one day we'll get to the beach~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRPORTS

FYI "Remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article" WP:Airports. ~mitch~ (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that will not stop others from coming in and reverting the edits if it doesn’t fall under the well established guidelines. I won’t revert Austin-Bergstrom anymore tonight due to 3RR, but it is you who needs to get consensus for the maps. Blissfield101 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ~ First you can not even link the specific 'guidelines' you are referencing ~ I know many policies and guidelines from WP:~ if you can not specifically ref a policy ~ it is useless to a new editor~ and that leaves you thinking, that you are always correct referencing a page from WP: and some policies are over 20 pages long ~ this is what I was trying to teach you from our last edits concerning focus cities ~ Also I think that you should take the advise from other editors like User:MilborneOne that have been working with airports, airlines and aircraft for more than thirteen years ~ if another editor wants to remove the maps I will refer them to the talk page before they remove such a large part of an article. ~ I see you have been asked nicely to stop removing maps ~ (which you have deleted from your talk -page) I see you have less than 1000 edits since April of this year ~ and you come off like an expert on airports ~ maybe you should learn to talk to more senior editors before you revert a second ~ maybe we kinda really know what we are talking about when giving encyclopedic information to readers. Wp is not a place to prove how smart you are in a certain area. It seems you get your feelings hurt when another editor does not agree with you and you think [your] word is law ~ well c'est la vie ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things here. First, let be be clear I am not mad at you and I know you mean well, so don't take anything I am about to say personally because I am simply trying to explain where I am coming from. Second, I don't get my feelings hurt, I don't really care what other editors think of the edits. I never said my word is the law, but if an edit/piece violates Wikipedia policy and/or consensus, I will change it. Third, I am talking about the specific page content guidelines on the WP:AIRPORTS page. Just because it says you do not necessairly have to follow them does not mean you can simply ignore them and do as you please. These guidelines have been well crafted over time by editors of the project and while not perfect, provide a good framework of how airport articles should be. Fourth, I have been lurking on these pages for several years prior to editing, so I've been around a lot longer than April. Just because I haven't made edits does not mean I do not know what I'm talking about. You shouldn't be quick to judge based on the number of edits. I am by no means perfect (see above), but I am not a complete amateur as some have suggested.

As for the current situation, despite the various here and elsewhere, there is currently no clear consensus as to whether or not to include the maps. I am actually not opposed to them, but the way they are done now appear to violate WP:ACCESSIBILITY and they are very redundant to the Airline and Destination table (plus, they also tend to fall out of date faster than the A&D tables). Therefore, my only suggestion was since there isn't a clear consensus yet, we shouldn't include them right now and perhaps we should start a clear RFC before including them. One user on the last discussion suggested we change the airline and destination tables to a list of airlines and daily departures out of each airport and then include the maps for destinations. I'm actually very much in favor of that, as it would be much more encyclopedic than the current system. However, as I've learned from above, making large scale changes will get airline enthusiasts upset, so I cannot start that process. Blissfield101 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GUM as hub for United Airlines

Hi Blissfield101,

Following up on whether Guam is a hub for United Airlines. The corporate fact sheet doesn't seem to mention it, no, but the airport and terminal maps page and the route map list it as a hub. The corporate fact sheet states "domestic" hubs, so maybe they consider GUM to be an international hub (despite being part of the United States).

The list of hubs on the airport and terminal maps page was modified very recently, some time between June and now, separating out key airports from hubs. FRA, HKG, LHR, and NRT were moved into the "key airports" section, whereas GUM stayed under hubs. Along the same line, the route map was changed to remove FRA, LHR, and NRT between February and April 2019. The corporate fact sheet hasn't had its list modified as far back as the Internet Archive can see (going back to July 2018), so I'd be more inclined to trust the list that was more recently updated, unless there's a Wikipedia policy to use the corporate fact sheet instead. --immewnity 19:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O’Hare International Airport

Hi Blissfield101,

I hope you are having a wonderful time currently. I would like to put images in because I am a Chicagoian and I love images of amazing places in Chicago. Sorry if this is affecting you, but I won’t revert without permission, but note that I don’t think they are random, I’m just a chicagoian who moved out a while ago and miss it a lot. Again, I’m sorry.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.153.87.107 (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Percent Changes on Statistics

Why would percent changes to statistics be seen as too much information? They are calculated and updated with every change in numbers. It's extra information. Since when has extra information been a bad thing?

Please read WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia is not meant to be a place where exhaustive details are given, we are to summarize information. For an airport like San Jose, CA, which is a medium sized airport and not a major hub, things like aircraft movements, cargo statistics, percentage changes isn't relevant. Also, please sign your comments. Blissfield101 (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why

Ratanpurwb (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible disruptive editing

Hey, not sure if this is the right plate to bring this up. I fixed some internal links on Air Wisconsin that someone had changed (and in one case, broke). I found that that this user (Noahreiner15) had reverted my edits without explanation. I re-reverted, but decided to look at the users talk page to find that you had left a warning to this user about this very thing. Not only that, but the original edit was *after* your warning. I don't know policy very well, and am not sure what to do in this instance. I won't get up in arms unless the user reverts again without explanation, but your message on the user's talk page makes me think that this is a pattern of behavior. 68.48.107.79 (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

	~ Happy Holidays ~
	~ (belated) ~ hope you have a prosperous New Year! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XNA

Please defend your restoration of WP:RAWDATA at Talk:Northwest Arkansas National Airport. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 22:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandonrush: I have listed my thoughts there. Blissfield101 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative solution for maps

Hi Blissfield. I got your message on my talk page regarding maps. Is there an alternative solution that the community can agree on? I think having the maps is a great way to give a visual image of where the cities are scooped out rather than having the reader to figure out where each city is on their own. Especially the origin airport city. So if a consensus is reached to not include them, is there an alternative way we can include maps such as a separate page or separate article for airport destination maps? I know me and quite a bit of others like having the visual maps out but as you mentioned others do not think so due to WP Accessibility. I think there should be something visual for people to see when it comes for scooping out destinations that airlines serve rather than just words. So I was wondering if overall we can find an alternative solution. If maps aren't going to work then would there be some other way we can include something visual for people to see when scopping out destination cities? I think there should be a visual example of some sort instead of just text if possible. - Oatmealman10 —Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to start a RFC on the WP:AIRPORTS talk page. There is no current consensus to include maps. The current ones are quite redundant to the Airline and Destination table. I would be open to re-including them if we could figure out a different way to do them, but not as they currently stand. Blissfield101 (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that sounds good. I will bring this up on Wikipedia Airports. Thanks! - Oatmealman10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oatmealman10 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peoria-to-Chicago Highway

You didn't seem to provide any rationale for replacing an entire multi-section article (with thirteen sources in it!) with a redirect to a single paragraph of another article; is there a reason why those sources are insufficient or untrustworthy? jp×g 20:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Couple of things here.

1. Is a mere old proposal (that will never be revived) significant enough to warrant its own page? There are plenty of more significant proposals that do not have separate pages.

2. There are almost no sources in the Current routes to Peoria from Chicago section.

3. Some of the sources are either dead or are from self published sources (i.e, blogs) where we cannot verify the information.

4. The Chicago to Kansas City information is already covered under Illinois Route 110

5. From what I see, nobody had even touched the page in over a year prior to me implementing the redirect, hence, the page probably isn't significant enough for most people to care.

The paragraph under the Illinois section in the Highway revolts in the United States article is sufficient to explain the proposal. Blissfield101 (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrick Studios

I saw you withdrew the request as I was working on clearing the WP:RFPP backlog, and prodded the article instead. I just wanted to make sure you understood that we now would not usually protect the article in order not to interfere with the prod. Best, Samsara 14:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines

I noticed you removed focus cities for Delta. Austin may not meet requirements but I think Raleigh-Durham does because they made an official announcement making it a focus-city in 2018 when Boston was announced a hub. It also meets other requirements for a focus city as it has a Delta Air Lines crew base and has 27 Destinations served. This information is not one that can be disputed. Austin can for logistical reasons but I do think Raleigh-Durham meets those requirements to be displayed.

@Bentheswimmer11: You are correct here. I was reluctant to remove Raleigh-Durham from the main Delta infobox, but since users would continuously add Austin as well, I thought it would just be best to not list focus cities period. I am personally not a fan of listing focus cities at all on any airline page, as the definition can be a bit fuzzy as is the case here with AUS. Only hubs and bases should be listed, but that is not my call. As for AUS, until point to point flying actually begins, it shouldn't be listed as a Delta focus city. American now has more point to point flying and they still aren't even calling AUS a focus city. Blissfield101 (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you added it back, that would be great. If I added it back, it would likely be removed again believed to be a part of an “editing war” as stated by another Wikipedia user. It does make sense not to include Austin at this point considering there isn’t even a crew base there or anywhere in Texas as well as minimal operations only to Delta’s hub airports and their Raleigh-Durham Focus-city. Bentheswimmer11 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bentheswimmer11: Done, even though I don't agree with listing focus cities at all. Blissfield101 (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it was something like 12 destinations served, I’d probably agree with you but in this case, I’d make it a focus-city since it has more routes than 2 of JetBlue’s focus cities Bentheswimmer11 (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Blissfield101

Thank you for creating Former terminals of John F. Kennedy International Airport.

User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello, thank you for your creation of the article. Unfortunately I do not think it is ready for the main space so I have sent it to Draft:Former terminals of John F. Kennedy International Airport where you can continue to work on it. It lacks inline citations, and several references (7,8,9) are not correct.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: This is what was on the main John F. Kennedy International Airport page, I simply moved it in order to de-clutter the facility section of the page. I understand there are issues and that it doesn't meet WP:V, but I did not originally write that information, it was accumulated over time. Outright removing the information would have caused a firestorm, so I'm not sure what to do? Blissfield101 (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Blissfield101: I will have to check what I screwed up here. Bruxton (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine some editing needs to take place here. It should be fixed. You could trim out things which cannot be sourced. The issue is that if it is simply moved it could stay in that sorry state for years. Bruxton (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Former terminals of John F. Kennedy International Airport

Hello, Blissfield101. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Former terminals of John F. Kennedy International Airport, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Former terminals of John F. Kennedy International Airport

Hello, Blissfield101. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Former terminals of John F. Kennedy International Airport".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing References

Hi Blissfield, it would be great if you could please stop removing references from airline destination tables. If you think a reference is outdated, update it but do not remove it. This has been discussed countless times at WP:AIRPORTS where the consensus was that everything needs independent sources (see WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT). Everything on Wikipedia needs to follow WP:V, so even is a route has already started, please leave the source. Thank you! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Blissfield, please stop removing sources. The consensus at WP:AIRPORTS is to keep sources whenever possible. Thank you! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

[1] Russell, Edward (June 7, 2019). "ANALYSIS: What makes a focus city for Delta?". FlightGlobal. Retrieved August 7, 2019.

[1]