User talk:CBG17

CBG17, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CBG17! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Jet2

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jet2.com. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MilborneOne (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This wouldn't happen if you actually read the reference as nothing is said about second hand orders, they are all orders straight from Boeing. CBG17 23:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I must apologise for that I was wrong and confused as I was just reading about them acquiring some second-hand aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, I have never heard or read anywhere that we don't list used orders as most orders for airlines are for used aircraft. CBG17 19:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Cubana de Aviación

In this [1] edit you reinstated an outdated number of Il-96s the airline has in its fleet, so please be careful and doublecheck what you are removing and what you are reinstating.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Hello, please understand that sources or references are crucial at Wikipedia per WP:V. Information cannot be changed without providing a source. Regards. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Air Alderney

The article Air Alderney has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG - specifically, there is no coverage in independent, reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sriwijaya Air

You're absolutely right about this [2] edit. Apologies.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi CBG17. Can you please add comments to the Alliance Airlines talk page to discuss changes and confirm where content is taken from. Anna FA (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Pegasus between Ercan and Stansted

Please note that according to our guidelines - which you seem to have understood wrong - we do only list destinations with an intermediate stop in between when the airline does not have traffic rights on all sectors and therefore the flights are considered direct flights. As Pegasus does have traffic rights between Ercan and Turkey, we only list the Turkish destinations from Ercan and not Stansted as it is not considered a direct destination. This topic has been discussed in recent years and decided this way. That is also why the large note is shown at the destination table at the article for Ercan airport as several onwards destinations are missing, not only Stansted. Best regards.

Hello

Hello, I'm Sunnya343. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

April 2017

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Air Arabia Maroc, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Air Europa Express. Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Its called basic maths my friend you should try it sometime CBG17 ^Talk 21:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Very last warning for your unsourced modifications [3].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Iran Aseman Airlines. 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 ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Please note that this user keeps making unsourced changes [4].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kish Air, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATR. 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) 09:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Tigerair, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. The fleet information in this article is reliably sourced from the monthly updated list provided by CAAS, the national aviation regulator in Singapore. SempreVolando (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Cobalt Air destinations

Thank you for providing reference that both style of layout can be used. However kindly keep new version that looks more up to date, it's easy to edit, looks better than basic version and its more informative with IATA & ICAO codes. New version looks more profesional. I am sure you agree. Thank you Wappy2008 (talk) 22:26, 1 may 2017 (UTC)

It's not exactly easy to edit compared to the list, if you check the guidelines IATA & ICAO codes should not be included so maybe you should do more research yourself. CBG17 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I will not revert back but thank you that you do appreciate improved edits of other people. It's very kind of you. Wappy2008 (talk) 23:05, 1 may 2017 (UTC)

Cobalt Air destinations

I have noticed that you have reverted edits of several users for Cobalt Air destinations including me without trying to co-operate and you insist on your version. Be informed this is not the way how Wikipedia works. I am well aware that both layouts are correct according to Wikipedia guidelines, therefore users should discuss problem and edits on talk page. If majority of people agree on one version that one should be in use. Feel free to create discussion on the talk page to discuss further edits with other users before you do next reversion. As well be warned that this was your fourth reversion within last 24 hours. Your next revert will be reported for edit war and you will be at risk of being blocked from further edits on Wikipedia. Saoluiz (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If you actually read in my talk section just above you will see that me and another user have already spoken about this and agreed on a list so you are the one at fault here CBG17 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Im sorry but it doesn't look to me as user agreed with you, user just didn't want to create further arguments (thats how i see it), as you are not valuable to co-operate and make discussion with other users. Saoluiz (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

well they clearly did because they stated that wouldn't revert it back plus as I stated to the other user the table isn't even no where near what the guidelines say so you clearly have not read them either CBG17 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

BA Cityflyer E170

There is evidence that the E170 is operated for BA, check all BA flights from LCY to Dusseldorf/Isle of Man, they are operated with Embraer E170 G-CIXW, owned by Eastern Airways. see https://planefinder.net/data/aircraft/G-CIXW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgh230 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have already been blocked once for this. Let's not go down that road again. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Biman Bangladesh Airlines

Please note that I reverted your last edit but also fixed the parameters in the {{cite web}} template [5] so that the airline's website and not the archive version is displayed. Hope this is fine for you.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That is fine but I still think it is a bit pointless archiving a website such as this especially for a fleet table as the archived link is basically pointless when updating the table as it won't be up to date so there's no point having an archived one and the normal one as the archived one won't be used CBG17 ^Talk 21:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Azur Air (Germany)

Please desist of editing this company name and moving the article itself towards wrong notation. The official company's name like written in their very own imprint [6] is exact the same name their Russian sister company is using und both got the same brand by parental company. That's very, very common in aviation industry! An airline named Azur Air Germany is not existing!! On Wikipedia, such name redundancies are solved by adding a specification in braces like (Germany) in this case or (actor), (movie) e.g. Its very common on Wikipedia, too, to make use of talk pages instead of making such changes by your own. Thank you very much. AviNation (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If you read here [7] the say "Azur Air Germany" this is no different to Azur Air Ukraine CBG17 (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

As said on the talk page [8], there is an essential difference. By the way the official company's name is written at the bottom of your link! This name is registered to authorities and has to be used for the title on Wikipedia. AviNation (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017 - Wataniya Airways

Hi, please stop your edit war at Wataniya Airways. Other editors will sort it out in due course, meanwhile if you persists in warring, whether right or wrong you may be sanctioned by an admin. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How can I stop it if the other person is clearly vandalising the page? As the airline has restarted new operations only the new routes should be shown not the old routes as they were operated previously in its first round of operations. Steelpillow CBG17 (Talk) 14:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Have patience. Give the rest of us a little time to figure out what is going on. Above all, when another editor alerts a WikiProject with a perfectly good post, do not take the law into your own hands and go deleting their appeal. That really was a big bad you did there, you are not on safe ground now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

If anything you are making it worse by changing the wrong pages so before trying to 'help' actually go onto the right page first. CBG17 (Talk) 14:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been editing wiki since a decade so I know better than to vandalize, read it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wataniya_Airways_destinations#Adding_destination.139.190.254.44 (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

A bit unfair seeing as you're not even listening to what i'm saying @Steelpillow:

A page you started (VIM Airlines destinations) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating VIM Airlines destinations, CBG17!

Wikipedia editor Meatsgains just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Consider providing additional reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

To reply, leave a comment on Meatsgains's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Meatsgains (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Azur Air Germany a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Azur Air (Germany). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason i did it like that is because i can't change the name of the pages around as it won't let me because they are pages of the same name

Sources

Hi, I'm Wjkxy! I noticed that you added new flights at Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany) without citing a reliable source, WP:AIRPORTS states: "For future destinations, add: "(begins date service begins)" after the destination. Starting dates must be provided with full date including the year and references should be provided." So I kindly ask you to add a source next to new flights, to show readers and other editors that what you've added is true.
Thank you. Wjkxy (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, I'm andrewgprout! I noticed that at [[9]] and other similar pages you added new flights without citing a reliable source, WP:AIRPORTS states: "For future destinations, add: "(begins date service begins)" after the destination. Starting dates must be provided with full date including the year and references should be provided." So I kindly ask you to add a source next to new flights, to show readers and other editors that what you've added is true.
Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Flydubai MAX Order

I have reverted your incorrect edit you made at Flydubai. If you read both refs provided at the end of this message, when the airline took delivery of its first Boeing 737 MAX 8, both refs clearly stated that the airline has 76 aircraft on order. Thus after the airline took delivery of the first, they had 75 remaining aircraft on order (76-1=75). So that means, the airline has 74 MAX 8s still on order (76-2=74) after they took delivery of their 2nd aircraft. Please refrain from reverting the edit as it may be considered to be an edit war. And again, make sure you read both links provided to prove my case. Carry on with your own business.

Rogue1 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

READ BOTH LINKS http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-07-31-Boeing-Delivers-First-737-MAX-8-to-flydubai http://www.boeing.com/commercial/customers/flydubai/first-737-max8-delivery.page

September 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aeroflot. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I would hardly call it an edit war if i've reverted only two post so lets not exaggerate here

Lion Air Flight

CFIT is a reasonably meaningless euphamism for crashed while flying normally this term is Jargon and is not in the common lexicon - MOS:JARGON applies here. It is also questionable if a landing plane that undershot the runway qualifies as CFIT. Controlled appearing lacking me thinks  :-( . The Summary field in the infobox is a summary field it is not a blame and cause field - It should describe what occurred not some random acronym. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Eurowings Europe

Hello again. When I see there is no date in the infobox, I don't know when the information was last updated. Often I have seen different data in the infobox versus the body of the article.

However, I will not be reverting your edit - I don't want to violate WP:3RR and I know you will probably revert it back! In the future I suggest we have a talk-page discussion after one or two reverts. Come on, let's be WP:CIVIL.

By the way it appears you're very much interested in aviation, so you might wish to comment on this Request for Comment about the "Airlines and destinations tables." — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: Hi, while you're here could you please help with an edit war that is happening on the Larnaca International Airport page I have tried to get the user to use the talk page but they aren't listening and are persisting to war. If there's anything you can do it would be a great help thanks. 00:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry for the late response; I will take a look. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC) EDIT: I'm going to say first off that the level of reverting is incredible - I don't believe I've ever seen this before. If an admin or someone like that saw this, the consequences would likely be serious - especially since you've edit warred before!
  The solution is to be the "better person" and take it to the talk page first - just leave the other user's edit there for now. I like that you are providing edit summaries (except when you write in ALL CAPS), but they are not the place to have a conversation! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: Thanks for taking a look, it should be noted that I did try and be the "better person" and asked the other user to take it to the talk page multiple times and I wrote a section on there but clearly repeatedly did not comply. I also wrote a comment on the users talk page but they also chose to ignore that too. Thanks for your assistance. 10:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Larnaca International Airport

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.

I need to issue you this template because I'm doing the same for the other user. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

TUI fly Netherlands

I have reverted your revision. Firstly planespotters.net is not regarded as a reliable source and secondly journal citations are a norm within Wikipedia and can, of course be checked. Both of these subjects are covered in recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines Ardfern (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Faleolo

Your edit of Polynesian has removed the Pagopago flight which will continue please actually reflect what the reference says.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The flight to Pago Pago operates from Fagalii not Faleolo check the airline website before reverting 19:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Air Arabia Maroc. Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Thomas Cook Airlines.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 13:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2017 (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).

CBG17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You have no reason to block me I am trying to stop the user from disrupting the page and every time i take to their talk page they never seem to get the message. CBG17 (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

These are the exemptions for edit-warring. None are applicable. To answer your question to Drmies below, your block is longer because this is your second block for edit-warring. CIreland (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2017 (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.

Drmies, can you please explain to my why I have been blocked for longer than the other user who was the one who instigated the warring and has been disrupting multiple pages for the last 3-4 days.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Pinto Martins – Fortaleza International Airport

Hello CBG17: a friendly suggestion, maybe take a break from that article for a while, especially as you've recently been blocked for edit warring. It's on my watchlist now, so I'll keep an eye out for any egregious edits. Cheers, Kbseah (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Kbseah, I will take a break now, thank you for stepping in and helping the user seems to think that I have 'ruined a years work' which i find had to believe and finds it hard to realise that when i made the original edits the page was a mess. CBG17 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Norwegian Air subsidies

Hi, regarding your latest changes on LCA airport for Norwegian Air i do agree with you that D8, DU, DI have their own AOC and shouldn't be under DY. However it is stated on every single airport across wikikipedia that flights are under DY operated by D8, DU or DI. The best possible option is to create a discussion about changes with other users on talk page to see if changes should apply as it will effect several pages across WIKI. This way you will avoid any further edit warring that will put you at risk to be blocked as you have been several times within last past week. I recommend that you should make changes at airline hubs (LGW, CPH, HEL, etc) first and create discussion on their talk pages to see what other users think about it and then when its agreed and approved, it should be changed on all wiki pages. Wappy2008 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)}}

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, CBG17. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Meridiana services from MXP

Hi

I saw that you arbitrarly removed seasonal and charters destinations of Meridiana from the page "Malpensa airport". Keep in mind that arbitrarly removals are considered vandalism. With regards to your modifications keep in mind: - Seasonal services are 6months based (and updated). Summer seasonal for S2018 are yet to be announced. Before officials it is useless to remove any info -Charter services are not bookable on-line but are actually up. e.g. Fort de France service is still up (enough to check Malpensa official web site)

You are invited in not arbitrarly removed info in future thanks

Service MXP to Shenzen

Hi

for your info, service MXP - Shenzen operated by Meridiana is not bookable online since it is sold on preferential channels for Chinese market. It can be booked only in agencies by NON-Chinese customers. Anyway is up, perfectly operating (twice a week). Here some references (ITA language)

http://www.travelnostop.com/news/compagnie-aeree/new-york-miami-merdiana_411855 http://www.travelnostop.com/news/compagnie-aeree/meridiana-cina-volo-malpensa-shenzhen_403327

keep ALWAYS in mind that not all flights are bookable on air companies' web sites.

If it cannot be booked on the airline website then it is clearly a charter flight, that is literally the definition of a charter CBG17 (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Your recent editing history at Pinto Martins – Fortaleza International Airport 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of hub airports, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UTair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Al Maktoum International Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverting of Cobalt edits and associated pages

Please provide evidence the routes are continuing, the retraction of constructive edits is also does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Please discuss prior to engaging in reversion of edits.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing Kavs8 (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kavs8: The airlines full schedule has not been released yet, Chania is still shown on the airlines website if it was not operating anymore then it would have been removed like Brussels and Birmingham. The references you have provided are not reliable anyway as they do not provide specific information that the routes are ending and references that just link the airlines website are not allowed. Also looking at the comments on the airlines official facebook page shows that the flights are still operating but the flights have not been released, which has been confirmed by the comments. CBG17 (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Termination date for LEVEL BCN-PUJ service

It is strange to see you requesting a source for this [10] edit but not providing one in this [11] other case. If you think the termination date for the PUJ service should not be there you may remove it rather than making an unsourced change.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FlyEgypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing operated by

As far what i see in discussion is that removing operated by was agreed only what didn't come to final decision is merging mainland and regional airlines into one for example: Air Canada, Air Canada Rouge and Air Canada Express to be all as Air Canada. According to discussion operated by can be removed. If you see something i did miss please attach it to me as reference. Thanks Wappy2008 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wappy2008: That was no agreed on entirely, only by 3 or 4 users who decided that for themselves. The ongoing consensus includes the operated by, if you read some of the comments on the talk page it does crop up so for the time being its is best to leave it until the general consensus has been completed otherwise if it is decided to keep this format it is going to make it very hard to get all of it back would take some time. Also I am surprised as when it first arose you were against it so surely removing it would contradict what you said on the talk page? just a thought. so as I said it would be best to leave it how it is until the consensus is complete. CBG17 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@CBG17: If you read comment by comment none of the users refused or disagreed on not to remove operated by. Only ongoing conversation is including merging mainland and regional airlines into one (as i mentioned above). As if you read my comments on talk page a appeal to not merge mainland and regional airline as i wrote that would effect for example Small planet airlines, Travel Service, easyjet, etc. as well i mentioned that brands in different country should be kept but in case of Eurowings which use different aircrafts of bankrupt companies or other airlines aircraft that should be definitely removed as is very confusing to be sating operated by LGW, Brussels airlines, Germanwings, Tuifly as this they change it all the time and is hard to control and state what is operated by what aircraft. I definitely agree on removing operated by as in some cases creates mess on wiki pages and is very confusing. However i will ask again on the talk page if operated by is good to go or should be kept for now. Thanks Wappy2008 (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@CGB17: @Wappy2008: merging mainline and regional had no consensus but removing operated had a longstanding consensus and it is stated at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT point 3. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Again arbitrary removal of Meridiana charter

Hi. Once again I see that you arbitrarly removed info regarding charters operated by Meridiana/Air Italy from/to MXP. I do not think that you considered:
- Charters are not bookable online thus dio NOT appear on company web site
- Refers to malpensa official website
- Arbitrary removal of content is a vandalism

Hope to never come back on this

@Riktetta: Firstly I know what is charter is and how they work I'm not an idiot and secondly you say to refer to the airport website which is what I did and none of those destinations are shown therefore removed. CBG17 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@CBG17: Please check http://www.milanomalpensa-airport.com/it/voli/partenze day 24 feb. It cleraly show, as an example, that fort de France charter service is still ongoing. is it enough for you? Please dmeostrate you are NOT an idiot by respecting page rules and not modifying arbitrarly. ty

@Riktetta: Not sure where you're finding this information because its not showing on the departures list of the seasonal flight map. According to the Fort de France airport website the last flight operated was 11 February 2017 and the Rostock flight is not shown on the Rostock Airport website either.CBG17 (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@CBG17:If you look to http://www.milanomalpensa-airport.com/it/voli/partenze and select 24 February as departing date, you will clearly see that service to Fort de france is still ongoing. In addition, end date of services to Fortaleza, Mauritius and Havana have to be confirmed. Merididana has not yet published calendare for winter 2018-19, nor clearly announced the end of such services, thus I do not know where you get the info (such flights are over during summer, should be listed as seasonal). Service to Fortaleza also stop in Recife, thus if one is over/ongoing the other is also over/ongoing

@Riktetta: end dates for Havana have not been confirmed it was confirmed that the airline would end all routes except domestic routes and flights to North America, Thailand and selected destinations in Africa and I did add a reference for this which YOU removed as you clearly don't read stuff before you remove it. So in answer to you question where im getting the information from, the airport website and the airline timetable which makes it very clear the routes are ending. Do more research before reverting edits especially deleting references which explain the point just because you think the other person is wrong when actually the reference shows that. http://www.milanomalpensa-airport.com/en/airport/news?selectedYear=2018&userClass=&newsId=1836&type=news&textSearch=&airport=Malpensa&action=&channel=web&language=en&selectedMonth=+. Also states in this reference: https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/62470-meridiana-fly-announces-first-us-routes-fleet-growth "The airline's schedule for summer 2018 out of Malpensa will grow to seventeen routes from the current eleven. " the 17 flights it is talking about are ccra, Bangkok–Suvarnabhumi, Cairo, Catania, Dakar–Diass, Havana, Lagos, Lamezia Terme, Miami, Moscow–Domodedovo, Naples, New York–JFK, Olbia, Palermo, Rome–Fiumicino, Mombasa and Zanzibar. The rest of the destinations are ending as there are leisure destinations and the airline is focusing on more business destinations. CBG17 (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@CBG17: Hi, ok, but you have not considered Air Italy charter flight still ongoing (Fort de France expected to end April 4th FOR SEASONAL STOP, Rostock Laage confirmed for summer 2018). In addition, by last week, on MXP official web site (http://www.milanomalpensa-airport.com/it/voli/orario-stagionale-voli) are reproted some flights you recently arbitrarly removed (e.g. Albastar service to Bodo, Emirates to Al Maktoum, Turkish to Izmir, etc). Please restore them as soon as possible. I do not like to do things twice... ty

@CBG17: All services prevously included in Milano Malpensa Airport page, that you arbitrarly removed, have been restored as they have been announced on http://www.milanomalpensa-airport.com/it/voli/orario-stagionale-voli. Hope not to come back on these. Air Italy end services have been confirmed (at least those available on web site). Do I ask too much if I praise you NOT to remove things arbitrarly? thank you

@Riktetta: Stop adding Nosy Be to the Air Italy list it is no longer operated which is clearly shown on the website you're the one vandalising by adding routes that shouldn't be there. Mombasa and Zanzibar are seasonal which is also clearly shown on the airline website timetable and stop for 2 months they DO NOT need a resume date. Also the notes next to the end dates are irrelevant and not needed as it is has been announced that all the routes are ending so stop re adding stupid information.

References

Meridiana-AirItaly

Why have you moved Meridiana destinations to Air Italy destinations? If we have a new page for the airline, we should also have a new page for the destinations list. --Wind of freedom (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I have rollback the page into Meridiana destinations, but I have added a section with Air Italy destinations. When we will decide if keep two different pages (Meridiana and Air Italy) or just one (moving Meridiana page into Air Italy name) we will know if write a new page with Air Italy destinations or incorporate the two sections and moving back into Air Italy destinations the page :) --Wind of freedom (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

New Air Italy S.p.A Update

Hi,

I Am Not To Be rude but I have recently updated the new Air Italy S.p.A wiki page. I have reviewed the press release and the Press Conference video which Meridiana has provided on their YouTube page. All the information is correct. Mr. Akbar Al Baker Who was a panel member for the AQA Holding S.p.A (Air Italy Holding Company) he presented all the new changes for Air Italy. Most of the questions were directed to him. I am mad that you have deleted information which was useful for this page.

Mr. Akbar Al Baker Stated the Business Seats will be part of the B737 Max 8. As well as that He would like to have Air Italy in OneWorld Alliance. He even talked that The A330-200 is temporarily used for the airline and replaced by the B787. I am going to update the Page bring it back to how it was before you changed a lot of it. Again not to be rude but GET YOU FACTS STRAIGHT.

Thank You.

PS: FOR YOUR INFORMATION TO SEE THE PROOF VISIT THESE PAGES (BELOW) AND HAVE THE TIME TO REVIEW THEM.

https://www.meridiana.it/cms/deploy/1/IGGJ_InvestorRelations/EN/doc/investor_comunicatistampa/AIRITALY_press%20release_19.02.2018_social%20profiles.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TywhfgXxEeA — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUAE321 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@GUAE321: Firstly, Youtube is not a reliable source used on Wikipedia. Secondly, the way you have written this information is grammatically incorrect and written in a travel style form which is not acceptable as Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Thirdly, Lie flat business seats will not be used on the 737 MAX as they are only used on long haul aircraft the business class on short haul will have a different type of seat. And finally the order for the 787 has not been announced on the Boeing official website and there is no reliable source provided to say that there is an order, so stop being rude and get YOUR facts straight as a lot of your edits can be classed as vandalism. CBG17 (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@CBG17: Hi thanks for the "Nice" comment you made, but you are wrong still. Have you watch the youtube video that Meridiana S.p.A published on the changes to Air Italy. I don't care if "Youtube is not a reliable source for Wikipedia". I have studied their entire airline changes (the plan) since the announcement. I waste my time emailing the Meridiana Press office and everything I have asked they gave me the response. They even told me to look at the youtube video. Again stop acting like you understand everything about the airline. Also, Boeing has not announced the orders because the airline is new. Air Italy B737 Max 8 order is not on Boeings Website. I Have looked at the site and searched all over the site and there is no Order on Air Italy. One thing is that I believed the airline is getting the B737 MAX 8 because I researched everything and I WATCHED THE OFFICIAL YOUTUBE VIDEO OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE. Also, the slideshow at the press conference said there would be Business Class Seats in the B737 Max 8. You must stop acting like you know your facts, again get YOUR facts straight because my facts are right! GUAE321 (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@GUAE321: Stop being immature, it doesn't matter if you've watched the video. YOUTUBE IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. This means that anything you add WILL be removed as it is not referenced reliably. The 737 MAX orders are taken from the Qatar Airways order book so they are on the Boeing website. The 737 MAX will have business class I never said it wouldn't, what I did say was that they won't be the same seats as the long haul seats. The fact that you have 'wasted your time' is your own problem no one else's no one told you to do that research but if it is not reliably sourced it does not belong on Wikipedia. THAT'S THE RULES, if you don't like that then leave. Again stop being rude I have my facts straight YOU DON'T as you clearly haven't learnt how to edit properly yet you can't play by your own rules on here. CBG17 (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hi CBG17, I see you have a few disambiguation notices. You can go to Preferences>Gadgets>Appearance and check the "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" box. I used to get a lot of notices until I discovered that. Cheers. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cptmrmcmillan: I have just added it, thank you! CBG17 (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Air Italy again

The new Air Italy has not the space between "Air" and "Italy". Before move a page, that was been moved recentely, please discuss in the talk page before any change. Thank you! --Wind of freedom (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wind of freedom: The new Air Italy does have the space between states clearly on the airline website https://www.airitaly.com/en-en/company_informations/index.aspx CBG17 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You have to see the logo. The way you move the page is totally wrong. Please, read this: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --Wind of freedom (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wind of freedom: The logo is not an indicator Pakistan International Airlines' logo is shown as PIA that page is not named PIA. THE AIRLINES NAME IS AIR ITALY WITHOUT A SPACE. No where has it been written or presented as AirItaly. CBG17 (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wind of freedom: references to prove this: Not one of these references state the name as being AirItaly. CBG17 (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

References

On its Facebook page the airline is called "AirItaly", you have also the logo to prove this. We use the airline name not the corporate name, that must be written in the incipit. The page is called easyJet not easyJet Airline Company. --Wind of freedom (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wind of freedom: That's only one example also easyjet is not the same as everywhere it is stated as 'easyjet' including news reports, in this case the only place AirItaly is found is on the facebook page which is not enough to show that and on all their post on facebook they write 'Air Italy' not 'AirItaly' this is nothing but a username choice nothing to do with what the actual airline is called the official name is Air Italy and that is where it is shown on every website and news report. Also if they were naming it by the corporate nae all the new reports would state it as 'Air Italy S.p.A' but they don't they use 'Air Italy'. CBG17 (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please, see also Iberia (airline) that is not the company official name. If the company writes its logo without space and writes its name without a space on its social network page, is just because it wants that AirItaly will be its most common name. --Wind of freedom (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wind of freedom: If the company wanted to market their name without a space they would have done this on their website but as it clearly states all over their website it is not the case. Look at Cobalt Air, their facebook page is named Cobalt Aero but their official name is and marketed as Cobalt Air, Air Italy is no different to this there was also a discussion about this when the airline first started whether the page should be called Cobalt Air or Cobalt Aero and Cobalt Air was chosen because it was their most common name. AirItaly only being shown on the Facebook page is not enough evidence compared to the airline website and multiple news reports. CBG17 (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, it that case the disambiguation wasn't needed as in this case. --Wind of freedom (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wind of freedom: Put it this way, the airline website states the name is Air Italy not once anywhere does it state the name is or marketed as AirItaly. The official website and all the news reports are more reliable than a Facebook page as Facebook is generally not a reliable source unless it is a verified account which in this case it is not as it does not have the blue tick (the same as twitter). So with the evidence provided, except from this Facebook page, the airline is known as Air Italy everywhere else. CBG17 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Flydubai

I apologize for blowing up this whole situation than it needed to be. I am clearly the one who needs an extreme reality check because what I did was completely wrong. You had every right to defend yourself. I had no reason to do what I did. I will be giving up editing. Should I return, I hope we can edit in solidarity. And I hope you forgive me. Goodbye and I wish you the best.

-Rogue1 00:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Freebird destinations from Ercan

Hi there, any chance you could double-check the Freebird destinations from Ercan? There seem to be more, as I recently came across flights to Tallinn, among others André Devecserii (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@André Devecserii: Hi, yes I am going to see if I can find any travel sites that sell these charter flights which should hopefully help give more evidence for the these flights and if any new ones are found they can be added. CBG17 (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@André Devecserii: I have just found the route to Tallinn you spoke about operated by Corendon Airlines, this route is actually not a 'direct' flight as it requires a change of aircraft at Antalya which means it is not notable. I have found a few other flights operated by them but they also require the change of aircraft. CBG17 (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@CBG17: Must've changed then, because I know I saw a flight for Tallinn at Ercan in November. It was Freebird, not Corendon André Devecserii (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Kenya Airways

I read the sources, don't treat me like a neophyte [12]. The official airline's website does not show Boeing 777s in the fleet.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: The airline website won't show the aircraft because they don't operate the aircraft themselves they are leased out to other airlines, as it clearly states in the reference, it's been reported the airline is still getting the aircraft back so why is adding them back to the table a problem.CBG17 (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I've amended the fleet table using the airline's official information. Please take a look.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Laudamotion destinations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Laudamotion destinations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laudamotion destinations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GMG^talk 13:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Amílcar Cabral International Airport‎

I am unhappy with your reversal of my addition to Amílcar Cabral International Airport‎. You complain about the format - you can as well correct the format. And you complain about lack of references, but the wikipedia article about the airline is a sufficient reference, isn't it? In general, you are - contrary to the general spirit of wikipedia - very negative. Instead of removing, couldn't you get yourself to improve? Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jan olieslagers: I'm not going to waste my time reformatting it when there's no references to prove the routes are operating, they will only get removed again. The Wikipedia article about the airline is NOT a sufficient reference and you didn't even provide a reference for that. I am not "very negative", your edit is seen as vandalism as you have not provided any references and not followed the same format as the rest of the table, therefore it does not belong on the page. CBG17 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

My addition has as many references as the vast majority of entries in that table so that's a fake argument. Are you going to remove all entries with no reference? Were they all edit by vandals? But it is obvious you want to have things your way and your way only - so be it. Don't expect much motivation from me, at least I will steer around articles which you seem to consider yours. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And no, I am not going to waste my time in further arguing with you. Have it all your own way! Enjoy! Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jan olieslagers: The current routes in the table have all previously had references to show they have started or are operating, you provided nothing, i'm not having it "my way" its the guidelines stop acting like you're being attacked and learn how to edit properly. If you were to edit properly then we wouldn't be having this conversation and i don't need your "motivation" if it means I have to remove or change your edits each time. Face the facts you're in the wrong, all you had to do was add a simple reference but that's clearly too hard for you do and actually add the information in the correct format as you clearly just copied the list of the airlines page and pasted it. If you're not going to edit properly don't edit at all. CBG17 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

TUI

Just want to get your opinion on TUI flights ex DUB. Is it really correct to class them as charters because they are booking on their own platform like TUI UK. TUI UK and Ireland are the same company and always have been just under a different brand. Flight Only were not bookable up until this year ex Dublin. There registered office is with TUI UK in Luton. It possible to book LGW-AGP as it is DUB-AGP so not really sure charter can still be applied. Jamie2k9 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jamie2k9: flights by the likes of Cello Aviation are also bookable on the website but these are also charters. Flights from Dublin have always been charters and have had a flight timetable previous years as well. These flights aren't sold on the TUI Airways page they are sold on the TUI holidays Ireland pages so they are charters as this is not the airline website but a holiday site so its not the same as booking LGW-AGP as those flight can be purchased on TUI.com where are flights from Ireland cannot. CBG17 (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello, I'm Andrewgprout. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Pinto Martins – Fortaleza International Airport, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

About PROD

Several times you have proposed AQA Holding for deletion (PROD). Firstly redirects are not eligible for this process - if you think one should be deleted you must nominate it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (WP:RFD); secondly anyone may object to a proposed deletion and once they have done so the article may not be proposed for deletion again - if you still believe it should be deleted you must nominate it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD). See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for more information. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

International destinations at Ercan Airport

Hey there, I've seen that you were engaged in some editing disputes at Ercan International Airport recently. Please note that it is actually correct that we do NOT state any destinations served from Ercan appart from the ones in Turkey. Here is why: Ercan cannot be served nonstop from the European Union due to the country's disputed legal status. Therefore all flights to and from Europe make an intermediate stop in Turkey, preferably Antalya. All airlines on these routes have traffic rights (meaning embarking and disembarking passengers at the intermediate stop, e.g. Antalya) between all sectors (Ercan - Antalya and Antalya - Europe). As WP:AIRPORTS-CONTENT clearly states, we do only list directly served destinations on the first sector, not the following ones. Therefore, for all flights leaving Ercan, the only listed stop is a Turkish destination as it is the first stop where passengers embark or disembark. Hope that clears up the confusion. And yes, this has been discussed several times in the last 10 years I'm here. Beste regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.17.60 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@188.174.17.60: Direct flight: "A direct flight in the aviation industry is any flight between two points by an airline with no change in flight numbers, which includes one or more stops at an intermediate point(s). A stop may either be to get new passengers (or allow some to disembark) or a technical stop over (i.e., for refuelling)." the flights operated do not change flight numbers and include a stop, its not different to British Airways flight from London City to New York the aircraft stops in Dublin for pre clearance which is exactly the same here where passengers disembark the aircraft for passport control. You say " Ercan cannot be served nonstop from the European Union due to the country's disputed legal status." That is correct but these are NOT nonstop flights. CBG17 (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You are correct regarding your definition of a direct flight. However the rules of the aviation portal and the respetive Wiki policy are different and as explained above: We only list flights between two points (e. g. the sector between Ercan and Turkey) and no onward destinations as long as there are rights to transport passengers soley between the origin and the intermediate stop. This is a clear policy for several years now, feel free to discuss it at the aviation portal. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.24.46 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@188.174.17.60: WP:AIRPORTS content point 7 says "List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports" ....and then other stuff saying when this does not apply. The definition of Direct effectively being used here is that the aeroplane and the flight number should be the same throughout. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Katowice International Airport

I see you wrote seasonal destinations Enfidha and Barcelona as "ends...". These are seasonal rouets which will operating again in S19. Do you have any source to confirm end if these routes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filips3 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Filips3: They are ending if you check the source given with the route, also don't think you have the right to question these routes as your previous edits show you're adding end dates without sources. CBG17 (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@CBG17: Ok. Yeah, my bad. I won't do it in future. Filips3 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Air Albania

Can you please stop deleting the destinations on Air Albania please with out an evidence and give a good reason as to why. If you have seen the references and used some commons sense the planes first destination and always with be towards in Istanbul. But you also deleted the future flights that had nothing to do with you reason of removing please and those had a reference. Thank you.Have nice day. ALBA LUSHNJE (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@ALBA LUSHNJE: Firstly, when adding a future destination there needs to be a specific start date, none of the routes had a start date they have only been announced as potential destinations for when the airline begins operations. Secondly, as of the reference I proved in the notes of my edit as to why I removed Istanbul is because the flight operated on 15 September was a test flight the airline hasn't started operations yet so this route will also need a start date. CBG17 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No future is future there is no date provided for those but its a future destination it even states on all the references when the flight start we will add the start dates people wanna see the possible destinations. I understand that it was a test flight still its going to take off from Istanbul its a proposed flight i stated if you can read more closer to what i wrote on the top then you would have understand. ALBA LUSHNJE (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@ALBA LUSHNJE: Future is not future, things change all the time the airline has not announced any start dates, the airline could change its plans for now no routes have been announced for definite, try and add a future route in another airline table without a start date and see how far you get, it will be removed as it has no start date without a specific start date it is just speculation. I did read what you wrote Istanbul is a definite future route but again has no start date. EVERY NEW ROUTE NEEDS A START DATE. CBG17 (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Then explain to me why Lufthansa,alitalia,and adria airways, etc dont have start dates on their destinations page that are future and they are big companies. The future destinations are unexpected but they are planned when they come out we will change some people wanna know what the future destinations are around the world. By the way the airline might have been shut down from the European civil air company for frauds cause its not an Albanian plane its part of Turkish on its tail. ALBA LUSHNJE (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@ALBA LUSHNJE: All of Adria Airways, Alitalia and Lufthansa's future routes have start dates so not sure why you're making stuff up? Wikipedia is not a travel guide per WP:TRAVELGUIDE so it doesn't matter if "some people wanna know what the future destinations are around the world" that is not what the page is for. CBG17 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Not making stuff up thats what im seeing on their page anyways im not going to waste my time with you dont understand anything.Or even try to compromise.

@ALBA LUSHNJE: Not sure what pages you're looking at because the future destinations on all those pages have start dates. I don't need to compromise on something that shouldn't be happening, I've given you evidence why you are wrong you're just choosing to ignore it. CBG17 (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ovda Airport, you may be blocked from editing. Charles (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Charlesdrakew: Its not advertising, if it was advertising the sources would be from the airport website which they're not, if you class that as advertising then nearly every page on Wikipedia would be advertising. If I should be blocked you should be blocked for removing sourced information and disrupting editing on pages that you have no interest in, you have no consensus to remove this information this has been happening for years if you have a problem start a consensus instead of disrupting editing. Me and other users will just revert your edits every time. CBG17 (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Dalaman Airport does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Sam Sailor 19:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dalaman Airport. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sam Sailor 20:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You continuously seem to be more interested in edit warring than to engage in a dialogue. Please explain your recent reverts citing guidelines and policies. Sam Sailor 20:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Why do you not respond? Please engage in dialogue here. Unexplained and unsourced edits will be reverted, c.f. Wikipedia:Verifiability. Sam Sailor 20:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Easy jet's STN-TLV seasonal route

Easy jet has been released the summer schedule. You are more then welcome to check.Friends147 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

SalamAir

Re: this, the reference doesn't say the service will continue either. A period for the service is provided there, and that period expired. In assuming these flights will continue in the future your changes constitute original research.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: The ref states it's seasonal that's why the period is given, if it has ended why have you left Baku as seasonal which is exactly the same. CBG17 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeap, you're right on this. Actually the official website includes both destinations as part of the network.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Aeroflot flights operated by Rossiya

Aeroflot and Rossiya Airlines still difefrent airlines (with some coomon shareholders). that operate under dufferent IATA and ICAO codes. All the Rossiya flights have FV primary code (not the SU like Aeroflot). FV flights are not part of the SkyTeam alliance - that can be confusing if mention as Aeroflot flight. All Rossiya flights are operated by Rossiya airfleet and Rossiya Airlines crew. Both airlines has different price policy (excluding cases of fares regulated by Russian Governement). No any reason to treat FV flights as SU flights.Antonbabich ^Talk 08:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Condor to Sylt

Hello there, you stated that Condor's website shows the DUS-GWT service albeit Condor announced on Facebook that the route will not resume in 2019. However, this is incorrect - the official schedule does not even have Sylt as a destination to select. Maybe not all parts of the website have it removed already. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.23.164 (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced and uncited changes

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
Please note all changes need a summary or at least a source or at best a citation which you constantly do not add while ignoring other content guidelines. You have been reported.

Neos S19

Could you provide reliable sources to the arbitral removals you are doing in Milano Malpensa Page regarding Neos Air? keep in mind that complete schedule for Summer 19 has yet to be confirmed (as already told you).

@Riktetta: The airline timetable is linked with all the information look at it! The start of the summer schedule has been released that's enough to warrant the SOURCED changes. Do not accuse me of not providing a reliable source when the airline's official timetable has been linked. CBG17 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@CBG17: As I already told you, NEOS summer 2019 complete schedule is yet to be announced (did you read things or just what?). Company release complete schedule only in March. Destinations you arbitrarly removed are those operated each summer due to agreements with tour operators. Such agreements are up to 2021, thus there is no clue to suppose that such destinations ceased. Fact that do not appear in the website does not mean they are over (it is more than 8 months on) Since you just remove and never correct (do you remember your spoils about Air Italy? do you remeber?), I have no intention to restore your removal in the future. Again, before arbitrarly remove, use your brain!

@CBG17: Hey hey hey, guess what? Additional service for summer 2019 have been added to NEOS network (check out https://www.neosair.it/ ). And guess what? ALL the destination you wrongly believed to have been removed, have been confirmed instead (e.g. Brindisi, Catania, etc.). That means, if you still have doubts, that schedule was not completed (NEOS usually complete seasonal schedule at the begin of the same season). You are kindly required to restore what you had arbitrarly removed. Thank you (hope that will serve you as experience)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion, November 2018

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 188.174.31.233 (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The complaint has been closed with a warning to you. If either of you reverts the article again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Istanbul airport

Hi, just to let you know that I reverted the article to an older version by you, due to edits by block-evading sock 80.179.42.39, which means that your one later change got reverted too. Please feel free to do whatever you like in the article now, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CBG17. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Zhukovsky International Airport (ZIA)

Hi, why do you insist on obviously incorrect definition "Airport type = Military/Public" for ZIA? In practice there is no such object as "military airport". It can be military aerodrome, airfield, air station but the airports are covered be the different classification: international, national, regional, towered or non-towered, etc. Ref. Airport or https://www.google.com/search?q=airport+types&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b And also, be sure there is no military operations on the considered airfield (only experimental flight regulated by the Ministry of Industry and Trade (Russia), not the MoD) and especially in the ZIA airport. Regards Apetrov09703 (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for correction. However, "Public" is also questionable :) Do you know any airport which is not public? I mean public|non-public are not the right categoriesApetrov09703 (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Apetrov09703: That's what is used on every page if you don't agree with that take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. CBG17 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@CBG17: Thanks for explanation. There is no intent at the moment to debate in the WikiProject Airports, so issue is closed Apetrov09703 (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CBG17 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: ). Thank you. Charles (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ethiopian to Istanbul airport

Letting you know that ET will be serving new airport, which was expected to be fully operational from 29 October for all, thats why airlineroute only called it Istanbul when they first announced the service in June to start from November and now again with it postponed to March, you will notice they clearly mentioned which Moscow airport is to be served in that reference instead of just saying Moscow, and they always mention Istanbul-Ataturk and Istanbul-Sabiha Gokcen when talking about the city in posts where Istanbul was to be served by any airline before 29 October i.e if an airline was starting Istanbul in September post would say it will be to Ataturk or Gokcen, but to make you happy I will not revert my own undone edit. 45.116.232.39 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Sofia Airport

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Long term edit warring

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Long term edit warring, refusal to discuss. Per a complaint at WP:AN3. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that CBG17 will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2018 (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).

CBG17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

None of my edits were disruptive if adding sourced information is disruptive then there is a problem everywhere, every piece of information added to the Sofia Airport page was referenced and within the guidelines, the paragraph put in place was awful which I don't understand how no one could see that, the referencing was atrocious with at least 15 references that didn't even support the text written which is why I replaced it with the better reference and improved wording, I have only removed this text once in the last 24 hours so how can you class that as edit warring and I didn't violate the 3RR policy. I shouldn't need a consensus to improve a page I'm trying to improve the page and the user that reported me seems to have no interest in improving it by removing referenced information when he wants and contradicts himself all the time saying that future routes should not be listed but only deleting certain ones where is the logic there? CBG17 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You seem to not understand our edit warring policy; until then, it would not be good for Wikipedia for you to be unblocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:58, 5 December 2018 (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.

"I shouldn't need a consensus to improve a page.." Please check the wording of the WP:Edit warring policy. You have now been blocked five times, so something isn't right. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Where is the other users consensus to remove the sourced information then on Doncaster Sheffield Airport, Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBG17 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Try reading WP:NOT.Charles (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Charlesdrakew: Have you brought this to a talk page and discussed it with other users? no you haven't you just continue to vandalise, you told me I had to have consensus to change the paragraph on Sofia Airport so where is your consensus to remove sourced routes as you seem to be the only person who has this opinion? adding start dates and end dates for routes has been happening for a very long time so why have you now decided this is not allowed and not discussed it with anyone. This does not fall into any of the categories of WP:NOT and does not violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. Also care to explain why you contradict yourself so many time when you remove these routes because you pick and choose which routes you remove you never seem to remove them all only some and if you think it's such a big problem why haven't you made these edits on a major airport page? why do you seem to circulate around the 3 same pages, if it really went against these policies you would be doing it over more pages and major ones, your argument makes no sense. CBG17 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2018 (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).

CBG17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have read the edit warring policy and I am now clear with the policy. I should have engaged on the talk page to make changes to certain pages instead of making the edits which were seen as warring, in future I will follow the guidelines more closely and use the talk pages when required to reach a consensus with other users if need.

Decline reason:

After reading your response to JamesBWatson's questions, I am not at all convinced that you do in fact understand this policy. Your answer still justifies your previous edit warring using the "I am right, people who disagree with me are vandals" line of logic, and simply increasing your use of talkpages does not inherently mean that you will no longer edit war. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:27, 16 December 2018 (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.

I am close to declining this unblock request, but I have decided instead to give you a chance to explain things. Over a period of almost two years you have received numerous warnings on this talk page about edit-warring, you have repeatedly featured in the edit-warring notice board, you have been blocked for edit-warring several times. Throughout that, including after the latest block, you have refused to accept that you have been edit-warring, and have taken a belligerent line towards other editors, including those who have tried to help you understand. During that time you have had more than enough chances to read the edit-warring policy, and more than enough encouragement to do so. Either you did not read it or you read it and failed to understand it. And then, quite suddenly, you announce that you have now read it and understand it. Perhaps you can address the following two points.

1. If you have now read and understood the edit-warring policy, why did you not do so at any point in almost two years when you were told about it, warned about being blocked because of it, reported at the administrators' edit-warring noticeboard because of it, and repeatedly blocked because of it?
2. Experience shows that far more often than not editors who suddenly change their tune in this way during a block either actually don't understand the relevant policy (whatever they may say) or else do understand it, don't care, and are just saying what they think will get them unblocked, with no intention of changing their ways once that has happened. In order to show that neither of those applies to you, and you really do understand and will change your approach, please explain what it is that you understand now, but didn't understand when you were insisting that you were not at fault, and denouncing editors with whom you disagreed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Firstly, in nearly every case I was told about edit warring I have used talk pages to resolve the issue, the second and third blocks I followed all the quidelines by using both the user and the page in questions talk page to sort the situation out but I never got anywhere as the other user was ignoring what I had to say, so I have read it before multiple times. The reason I didn’t follow it this time is because I believed I was improving the page where as other users where not and I was reverting the vandalism from other users who were and still are removing sourced information from pages, I should have used the talk pages to resolve this but at the time didn’t see it as necessary as the information I was adding follows Wikipedia guides lines for airport pages. I also didn’t see the use of taking it to a talk page at the time, as from experience with the user who reported me, they either don’t reply and ignore it or do not give a helpful reply to try and resolve the issue, I have even tried to talk to the other editor on here but they seem to not care or answer me. But even though this happens I understand that I need to use the talk pages more frequently, wether I am at fault or not, to settle any disputes with other editors to prevent this from happening again. CBG17 (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with what Yunshui said above. I'm afraid that far from showing that you now understand the relevant issues, your answers to my questions make it clear that you still don't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)