User talk:Groger95

March 2018

Hello, I'm Biografer. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Heathrow Airport have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Denver International Airport--Biografer (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Philadelphia International Airport. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't bother to post here again. Your comments are invalid. I see your pattern of behavior on this site and see your more interested in picking fights than actually contributing. Groger95 (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Groger95 Regarding Don't bother to post here again. Your comments are invalid. I see your pattern of behavior on this site and see your (sic) more interested in picking fights than actually contributing. I'm not the one "Packing the Sad" here - you do not own your talk page, it is there for you to communicate with other editors you simply cannot nor should not attempt to ban interaction with anyone. I have no intention to take any notice of your request not to post here again. Regarding your edits - removing valid secondary references that directly support detail in Wikipedia without a valid reason is disruptive - the way you are sneaking these edits in unexplained within other minor edits is a telling trait. Please read and understand WP:V. You are now edit waring on Philadelphia International Airport as you did on General Mitchell International Airport also. This is your last warning. Edit waring is as not accepatable behaviour as is deleting valid references. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Andrewgprout I've been observing the project for some time and notice that you and Garretka seem to be the only ones that have an issue with removing secondary references from the airline and destination tables. In fact, I see most of your edits revolve around reverting edits you do not agree with. I see nothing of substance in WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, WP:BURDEN, etc, that prevents the tables from having a consolidated reference. The stuff at General Mitchell International Airport was you trying to pick a fight. You had no grounds to revert the edits there, what I did was simply bringing it in line with all the other pages. Yet, you seem to feel the need to revert so you can bait me into an edit war and then flex your muscle by given me a warning about 3rr and edit warring. As far as "Packing the Sad", where did I say I own my own talk page and you couldn't post? All I was saying is you might not want to bother because you (you and Garretka in particular, not other users) have no credibility with me and your comments fall on deaf ears.

Oh and by the way, if anything is telling, it is not my edits, but rather, your own talk page and how many fights you have picked with users on this site. Your comments fall on deaf ears. You have no authority on this site and frankly, you contribute nothing. I've had it with users like you and I'm not going to be intimidated by your bullying anymore. Like I said before, you can leave further comments here, but know they fall on deaf ears because they are invalid and unfounded. Groger95 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Washington Dulles International Airport, did not appear constructive and has 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 the 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. Again - please do not delete valid references Andrewgprout (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• When you announce in an edit summary that you know you are violating 3RR but your gonna do it anyway... Once this has expired you are free to take your issues to the talk page and discuss. Anymore of this however, will not end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I have unblocked you as I just noticed that the edit warring was close to two days old. That's far enough back that I am going to let it go with the above warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Why don’t you talk with the two users in question. They are the ones that keep baiting me into these edit wars by reverting. Groger95 (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been biting my tongue trying to WP:AGF, but it's become clear you're not assuming that my edits are in good faith. WP:BURDEN clearly states that references must be provided for all material that is likely to be challenged. Are airline routes likely to be challenged? Unlikely. Is it possible? Yes. One major issue here is the routes at Philadelphia Airport are seasonal. You cannot properly use a primary source to verify this information unless it's explicitly stated. Timetables require interpretation, and thereby should be avoided as per WP:PRIMARY. I would encourage you to read WP:GOODREFS, the first paragraph backs up exactly what I'm getting at. Now, before you say "well not all routes have references so none should", that isn't practical in the tables current state. But it is practical where secondary sources do exist.

I hope you will have a better understanding and realize there is no reason to get worked up nor feel like you're being baited or bullied. We're both here working towards a common goal. Garretka (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)