User talk:Flyingmaneasy

Flyingmaneasy, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Flyingmaneasy! 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 Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Manchester Airport, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Glasgow Airport, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

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. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V applies everywhere - not just where it is convenient

WP:BURDEN is a thing. You (in another incarnation) are very close to being reported again as a sockpuppet of the serially banned editor. If you want to avoid that you need to apply the rules. The seasonal routes you have edited at Glasgow Airport are not supported by the general timetable at least not without a large degree of original research. You must include sensible secondary references - ie not directly from the timetable for these routes. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Glasgow Airport. Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luton Airport

Please dont edit war as your edits could be seen as being disruptive and you could be blocked from editing. If you have a problem and your edit has been challenged then please raise it at the related talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Disruptive editing

Despite being warned about edit waring and discussing on continue to be disruptive, this could lead yo you being blocked from editing so please take notice. MilborneOne (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Düsseldorf 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. MilborneOne (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are very lucky I didnt block you for silly statements like "Now a couple hours off the 1st June", I have no idea why you want to be disruptive just because you cant wait for the right date. Have a think about your actions this may be the last warning. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Your recent editing history at User Talk:Charlesdrakew 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. David J Johnson (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at BA CityFlyer 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. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop and think

You have already a collected a page full of warnings for edit warring and I gave you another chance last time when I could have blocked you from editing. A week later you are still being disruptive so really you need ask yourself why are these people warning me all the time. If I or another admin sees another warning or disruptive behaviour you will be blocked from editing, please stop and think on how you conduct yourself. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks talk. I do take your point on board and will behave from now on.

Flyingmaneasy (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Your recent editing history at BA CityFlyer and Edinburgh 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. David J Johnson (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict of interest

Hello, Flyingmaneasy. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.SovalValtos (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncaster Sheffield Airport

You undid [1] an edit of mine stating my edit was vandalism. How do you consider it vandalism? I removed an unencylopaedic prediction that stated a service would begin at a date in the future. See WP:NOT. You might also find it of benefit to read WP:DE.SovalValtos (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Doncaster Sheffield Airport. 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 ~~~~}}. Number 5 7 14:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]