User talk:Garretka

June 2016

Hello, I'm Omni Flames. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Omni Flames (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold and rules

Hi Garretka

Perpaps you need to read WP:BOLD, and can you tell me by what rule I need consensus to edit an unreferenced entry. In fact completely the opposite is true unreferenced entries should expect to be edited and or deleted. There needs to be a reference to an airport called Orlando - MCO or it can and should be changed. WP common name, or what a normal person would call something not an airport nerd, is a core concept in WP.

Thanks Andrewgprout (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I don't like MCO anymore than you do. The issue I have not only lies with the fact the WP:BOLD states do not be upset if your edits are reverted, but the lack of consistency you have now created among hundreds pages. Edit all or none. Two users including myself have reverted your edits, and I have done it for a final time. Kindly reignite the conversation at WP:AIRPORTS and I will gladly support you in removing MCO, as didambiguation in this situation needs to be discussed in much further detail, however on issues such as these, as per WP:AIRPORTS, consensus must be reached - not a matter of being bold.

Garretka (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando

Hello Garretka,

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

Thank you for taking the initiative to do this. I look forward to finally reaching a reasonable consensus. Garretka (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Would you like to provide your input at this discussion regarding references and the Airlines and destinations tables? Thank you! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YLW-YVR service

Hi there. Just noting edits you made at Kelowna International Airport and Vancouver International Airport removing the mainline Air Canada flight between those two airports. Your edits noted that the service does not exist. Per Air Canada's current timetable here, there is in fact a single daily mainline flight between the two airports. I have reverted the edits to correct this. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Nurmsook:, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Such flights were not on the schedule when I made those edits. After checking again, these flights are winter seasonal, not operating between April and late November. I have made an edit to reflect this. Thank you! Garretka (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit

please do not edit flags on destination tables i put them on domestic airports so people can know the states that they are in. it s not prohibited to put them there, the editor has control over which rules they follow about editing airport pages Thank you Jkd4855 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

jkd4855 you are making controversial edits, which, per MOS:FLAGS, requires discussion and also mentions it's best to leave flags out when considered controversial. Please stop this disruptive behaviour, these edits are not constructive. Garretka (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have had an admin block someone for removing these flags a persistently and they agreed it was it was disruptive behaviour to remove these if you read the forum on them you would understand that everyone has different thoughts about this. so i think that your edits are disruptive. Jkd4855 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

jkd4855 I'm not here to argue, several users have reverted your edits. That's the fact of the matter. Wait until any discussions are closed out before making any more edits. Garretka (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And users have talked to me and said the flags are at my discretion not at the discretion of the airport project rules. But i thank you for your comments. Jkd4855 (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

jkd4588 more users have chosen to oppose your views, and most users would see that as that they should take a step back. Your comments about my knowledge of WP:BOLD are not appreciated. Please place any further comments at WT:AIRPORTS. Garretka (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as i have said i will not make any more edits until 4:30 CST tomorrow when i will count all the votes and respect the decision being made. my most sincere apologies if i have offended you. Jkd4855 (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Screw it white flag on the flags not looking for a cyber war Jkd4855 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for taking the time to file that SPI. It is much appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YUL

Hello,

I have been undating the YUL airport page for years and I will do what we are used to do in it. We never ever let references once a flight has started so we won't be starting it today.

Anyway it's really rediculous to let this in. A new flight is not a fact like you said; it can be easily verified. We are a few planespotters from Trudeau airport down here and we know what we are talking about so please respect our knowledge and our page.

Thank you. WoWowYUL (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) WoWowYUL, nobody owns pages. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 11:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WoWoWYUL as said above, because it's been done in the past does not make it right. Just because it's easily verifiable does not make it right. It's simple, do not delete references without deleting the facts it's supporting. Your "verifying" falls under WP:OR. The references aren't harming anything being there and actually make it easier to verify. Please stop reverting these edits. Garretka (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is more then rediculous that I think... We will keep references for years now? In this case, why don't you go back years before to redo all updates that we've done on this section? Maybe you can find back all references that we've delete.

It's just not logic to keep this up. Like I said, it's not a fact, it's a damn flight. I don't know how to tell you so you get to understand... WoWowYUL (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend you leave this for a bit, and then come back when you are calmer. Otherwise it will probably just get worse for you. Breathe my friend. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 12:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WoWoWYUL you are forgetting Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. These things need to be referenced. There is a clear discussion at WT:AIRPORTS about this. Just because it hasn't been maintained in the past does not mean it cannot and will not be maintained moving forward. I would encourage you to raise any concerns you have at the airport talk page. Garretka (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have read few things about Wiki airport pages and I have found this:

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

What does that means? Am I understanding it wrong? Isn't it right to remove references in those case?

Taking here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content#Body WoWowYUL (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WoWoWYUL yes you are. Like i said above, it is not an instruction to delete inline references. They are there for a reason. That essay does also not trump WP:V, which is mandatory. Garretka (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Garretka. 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)[reply]

Reference Question

Hi Garretka I was trying to understand the question u posted asking me on Andrewgprout page, but my thing is when a new route is announced reference(s) is added which is proof of it's existence however when the date for the route begins I don't see the need for the reference any longer. I've read most of the discussion you told me to read (if the airline already exist on the route and there's a change no ref is needed, ref is only important for route beginning and ending),hopes this reasoning songs ok to you 33aircharter

33aircharter the issue with removing the reference in favour of the airline timetable is that you're replacing a specific source with a broader, more generalized one. A specific and detailed source should be used when and wherever it exists. Using the timetable is fine for routes that already exist in the timetable, but for newer routes it's best to leave them in, and add specific sources for existing routes wherever possible. Garretka (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Participation at WT: Airports

As you may be aware, there was a recent discussion on the talk page of WP:Airports which prematurely and without consensus resulted in mass changes to airport articles throughout Wikipedia. Before a drastic change like this is put into practice, it is important to have clear consensus, which from my readings as an observer, did not occur. Many of these changes started to occur before any real discussion had taken place, and despite much disagreement from some community members. Disagreement is good -- it's great actually -- without it nothing would ever get done. But it's important that everyone opinions are heard fairly and accurately, and that significant changes like merging the Regional Airline destinations with the Mainline destinations are not done without such consensus. I encourage you, as someone involved in WP:Airports and the original discussion, to voice your opinions and discuss with others about how we should move forward at this point. Positive and constructive conversation is the way to a consensus. I also ask that everyone (myself included) ceases merging or un-merging mainline/regional destinations until a censuses is reached. Please contribute to the conversation here. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airport article preferences

This is in response to what you posted on my page.

Here's the bottom line. Both you and Andrewgprout keep reverting edits you don't like, particularly when it comes to the airline tables and referencing. I rarely see anyone else doing so except you two, and frankly, I (and other users) are getting extremely fed up with this. There is nothing that I did that violates WP:V, all of the routes can be verified via the timetables. Yes, it may not be "secondary", but the fact is, it's almost impossible to source airline destination tables with secondary sources. If it is that big of an issue and you two are going to continue reverting edits, then the tables need to go completely. In fact, I may just start removing the tables because most of them violate WP:V if we are going to get hypertechnical.

Also, you said there is no "consensus" on adding a third reference column and that was one of the reasons you removed it from Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport. May I remind you that you were in support of the disastrous mainline/regional consolidation, which there was no clear consensus on and yet, you went along with it anyway (by the way, we are still cleaning up from that).

Sorry if I was blunt, but this is getting ridiculous. Mealer2015 (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mealer2015: like I said on your talk page. If you want to add the third column for references go ahead, I'm not stopping you. The reason I reverted your edit was because you also removed the inline refs. Removing references goes against WP:V, they are doing no harm being there. These tables are under increased scrutiny per the discussions I posted on your talk page, I encourage you to read them to understand that me and some other users are simply trying to bring these tables up to encyclopedic standards, which means secondary sources are used when they are available. This was also echoed on the project talk page, under the discussion titled "references". As I said, I encourage you to read these discussions to get an understanding where I am coming from. From these tables you will understand that both verification and WP:NOTDIR are the main arguements, which is why an RfC is necessary to get outside input as to how to display this information more encyclopedicly. It's not that i don't like the edits, it's that they go against everything Wikipedia stands for; references should not be removed unless the fact they are supporting is also removed. Garretka (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mealer2015:To add that I was in support of the disastrous mainline/regional combination, please enlighten me as to where I said anything of that sort. I agreed with the Alaska combination, as did many others. My comment, that I remember very bluntly, was "I'm not sure I agree with this and it requires further discussion". I never made any edits in regards to that, so please don't put words in my mouth. Garretka (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just want to thank you for exposing your gross hypocrisy on reverting my LHR edits. If we are to go by a strict interpretation of WP:BURDEN, then every destination needs a citation, and that is why I put in the tags. Your reversal proves that you selectively enforce the rules and exalt your preferences like Mealer2015 says above. Lhr029 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lhr029: No hypocrisy here. WP:OSE is not a valid arguement for removing references; to save you the trouble of reading it, just because they don't exist on some destinations doesn't mean that they should be removed from others. That is simply NOT how an encylopedia works, and all your reverts are proving is the VPP discussion was right by saying Wikipedia should not have these lists. Rather than being destructive, why not be productive. If your replies aren't going to be civil, don't bother continuing this conversarion. Garretka (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lhr029: also want to add that WP:WAR is not appropriate, breaking the 3RR rule as you have done. Also note another user more appropriately added a refimprove tag at the beginning of the section, which is much more appropriate and much less disruptive than adding citation needed tags to every destination. Garretka (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About that

I'll stop deleting references when you start consistently enforcing the "standards" (not that they even really exist) across the entire project and include a reference for every single destination on every table in every airport article. Unless you do that, the whole table is in violation of WP:V and WP:BURDEN and it is hypocritical to include references for some and not all (frankly, it is impractical to include references for everything). I may just have to start removing the tables because I'm getting tired of this BS. Mealer2015 (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mealer2015: You don't seem to understand how encyclopedias work. WP:V is a "standard" that does exist. Encyclopedias rely heavily on secondary sources, so when they exist, they should not be removed as you have been doing. Removing them is counter-productive and it's not BS. It's simple. Remove the dates. Leave the references and move on. I don't understand why you're being so uncivil about a simple request in an attempt to bring these tables up to encyclopedic standards. Also, note I did talk directly to you, I was simply pointing out your reference removals to an admin. Garretka (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Garretka: Look, I apologize for my previous rhetoric, but I am getting aggravated at what appears to be an increasingly militaristic attitude from yourself and other users about including references for destinations (where there really isn't any clear consensus about references from what I've read on the WikiAirport project talk page). Yet, you look the other way for most existing destinations. I wouldn't have a problem with references if the standards were consistently applied, but the fact is, they are not. You are probably well aware of the fact that it is impractical to cite every destination, so therefore, we need a new format. If users cannot agree on something, then it is time to start removing the tables if we are to come to the logical conclusion of WP:V and WP:BURDEN. Mealer2015 (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mealer2015: There's no need to get aggravated. Focus on improving the tables by not removing references. The clear policy to follow is WP:V. If you disagree with not removing references, I would invite you to start a discussion at WT:V to gain an insight as to what proper referencing looks like (heads up, any discussions started outside the Airport project will turn into a case of WP:NOTDIR rather than referencing). Rather than delete references, add a refimprove tag to the table section and move on. Other users will add references. Be a part of the solution, not the problem. Garretka (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References in Airport Charts

Hello, I do not mean to come across this way but reporting me for vandalism, wow. Wikipedia is a public platform which means that every edit is not ruining someones property/page. On the whole airport thing, if removing references is bad, then check out every other person that has done this. It is not a common occurrence. I won't continue to remove references anymore but, if you believe that every route at an airport chart needs a reference, then add them. Have a great day — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattAviation (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moi International Airport

Can you take a look at this page regarding this edit and let me know if that should stay? Thanks. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PHX-GRR AA

this is not very complicated, look at google flights and aa.com very simple search, as you obviously (dont know) start dates tend to change, and there is not going to be a news article regarding this

https://www.google.com/flights/#flt=PHX.GRR.2018-12-19;c:USD;e:1;s:0;sd:1;t:f;tt:o https://www.aa.com/booking/flights/choose-flights/flight1?bookingPathStateId=1539552394622-122

BA744PHX 21:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@BA744PHX: Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia works is that all information must be verifiable, and free of original research, which is what you are doing by changing the date. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:BURDEN, WP:OR and WP:SECONDARY. The fact that the date is "wrong" has to be backed up by a WP:RS, which you have not provided. Garretka (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:WAR, as you are in clear violation of the 3RR rule. You started a discussion here, which is great. But you then went right back to reverting to your preferred version, which is not how the system works.Garretka (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Garretka. 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)[reply]

Thanks!

... for your continued support regarding aviation matters! I have no idea how to post barn stars or nobler metal, but if ever we meet in person, the first drink is on me! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jan olieslagers:Cheers! Garretka (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan olieslagers - we do have a project recognition for good work, so thanks Garretka please accept some wings. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwings 2.0

Wikiwings are the official award of WikiProject Aircraft. Styled after military flight wings, they are awarded to anyone who makes extensive, high-quality, or generally valued contributions to the area of aviation on Wikipedia. They can be awarded by anyone, to anyone, in a barnstar-like fashion.

The wikiwings award is modelled after Rlandmann's wikiwings award, and were officially adopted by WikiProject Aircraft on October 29, 2005.

Airline and Destination Tables consolidation

I'd like to see your advice here, since you've been around longer than I have. The discussion at WP:AIRPORTS as to whether or not the mainline/regional carriers on the airline and destination tables should be merged is escalating. Most reasonable minded people who understand Wikipedia policy support the merger, but as of late, there have been a few airline enthusiasts who have been coming on and opposing the action (even reverting a few articles back), but they have given no valid reasons to revert back, other than it's useful. Myself, you and and others have explained ad nauseam why it's not encyclopedia to separate, but they won't listen. What should be done here, should this go to a dispute resolution? Blissfield101 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. I saw that you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]