User talk:Erobran

Welcome!

Hello, Erobran! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 06:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

December 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Vienna International Airport. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! There is no need to get rude when I ask for sources. The Banner talk 09:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dude: You can also learn to look into booking systems instead of "set sources" Capish? Erobran (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases and booking websites are not reliable, independent sources. The Banner talk 16:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases from the companies AND the booking systems ARE the most reliable thing that exists within the aviation industry?

I also write for an aviation media called InsideFlyer myself, so I have my stuff in order. Erobran (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what is going on but you still need reliable, independent sources. The Banner talk 16:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He can learn to look into bookingsystems and he will find the routes! Erobran (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Airlines to Lima

please that that future routes need exact dates as per this discussion and based on consensus Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 14#New Routes.2FServices: Exact date issue. Jz0610 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page has NOTHING to do with real official Wikipedia rules!

They do NOT decide how with dates whether a start date should be specified or not.

SEVERAL OTHER airports have the same problem dude! Erobran (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then solve these problems, do not damage the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 17:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Jorge Chávez International Airport, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please read WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT The Banner talk 15:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jorge Chávez International Airport. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Deliberate sabotage The Banner talk 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2600:1700:8544:D000:58A7:9DD1:E885:7BD4 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You're reverting repeatedly across many articles, and seemingly not discussing on any of their respective talk pages. Stop reverting and start discussing or you'll be temporarily blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Edit warring - with a bit more explanation

Hi - I thought I'd come by and give you a bit more advice on this. Quite a few times in edit summaries, I've seen you say that the Wikiproject guidelines are not 'official Wikipedia rules', and that people are/should be free to add whatever they want providing they provide a source. You are right in a certain sense, but unfortunately you are very wrong in another, and I wanted to explain why and how before you end up getting blocked from editing.

Wikipedia doesn't have hard and fast rules - this is enshrined in the fifth pillar, or fundamental principle, that governs how we operate: WP:5P5. We are also encouraged by policy to ignore all rules if they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. We also have the principal of levels of consensus, which specifically sets out that consensus amongst a small group of editors cannot over-ride consensus established by the wider community. So, in all these ways, you are right in saying that Wikiproject guidance does not constitute a set of hard and fast rules that all editors must abide by in all circumstances. However...

We also have the concept of consensus. Now, we have established that Wikiproject guidance is not necessarily a firm rule that must always be followed, but it is often a useful indication that certain things have been discussed before and a consensus arrived at; while you aren't always obliged to follow it to the letter, it is often foolhardy to ignore it entirely. When two or more editors have different ideas about what a page should show, they are expected to discuss it with reference to our policies and guidelines, and arrive at a position that reflects the broadest possible consensus. When the consensus doesn't go your way, you are expected to accept that graciously. When you make a change, and someone else reverts it, you know that at least one other person disagrees with you. The thing to do then is to go to the article's talk page and attempt to discuss it with them. What you did, however, was to reinstate your change five times, after being reverted by three different people, with no attempt to discuss your changes on the article's talk page. That is a very clear case of edit warring, which is disruptive, and which frequently leads to people having their accounts blocked. I don't want that to happen to you, but it is the likely outcome if you continue to try and force throuh your ideas about what our articles should say in the face of opposition from others. I hope this is helpful. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth.

I see there are certain things I have misunderstood in that case about "an edit war".

In the future, I will discuss the justification for the changes on a discussion page for the article instead of simply "rolling back the article".

Because on this point with the start date, I deeply disagree, when several sources in several places state that this is a route opening.

In addition, several other airports are ALSO included in the fact that a fixed date for a route opening is NOT stated, but instead a month is simply stated.

I thank you again for the detailed message, and best regards :-) Erobran (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're at liberty to disagree with others. Just be aware that once you know your edit is contested, the onus is on you to gain consensus for it amongst other editors before reinstating the edit. If they don't agree with you, don't reinstate it, even if you think they're wrong. Best wishes Girth Summit _(blether) 18:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]