User talk:Gulliway

Airport code edits

Hi. I see you've been doing a lot of edits to the airport code lists, most of which have been marked as "minor". In general, I don't believe this qualify as "minor", since they are actual content changes, and consist of things that should be verified/verifiable. Only completely un-disputable changes should be marked "minor".

I also see that you haven't cited your source(s). What are they? When last I looked (several months ago), the only ICAO source available online was ECCAIRS 4.2.8, dated 17 September 2010, and it had a number of mistakes, formatting issues, etc. (aside from being 2 years old). I ended up comparing the list articles against multiple sources, including that doc, the IATA site, FAA's NASR, OurAirports.com, Innovata data from FlightStats, and then manually investigated the discrepancies to try to determine the "truth". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alan! My changes mostly are fixes that I have found while comparing IATA and ICAO pages on wiki. I use airport pages as a source if IATA and ICAO lists have conflicts. I have found 83 conflicts in total and fix only if I am sure that code is correct Gulliway (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you mean you are comparing the List... pages against the individual airport pages, both on en.wikipedia.org. How do you know which is correct in the event of a conflict? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am using 4 sources: http://www.flightstats.com - good for major airports, but many mistakes with geo coordinates, http://www.gcmap.com - good, but seems that data is outdated, no updates for last 2-3 years. When I use skyvector.com to check ICAO codes and airport coordinates. I am also using internal source from company who selling air tickets to check airport existence. My original goal is to fill my database for the project, but when I meet with explicit mistake or typo (2-3 sources tell me that ICAO|FAA|IATA code at wiki page is wrong, when I made changes. If any doubt, no changes - for sure. What do you think, is this approach is good? Gulliway (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important note

Your userpage says "Gulliway - The account for non profitable travel project Gulliway Travel Club. We focused on overall wiki improvements". I regret to inform you that this is not permitted: any given Wikipedia account is only to be used by one person. All members of the Gulliway Travel Club are welcome to edit Wikipedia as individuals, and are free to identify themselves as club members, but the club as a whole cannot have a single shared account. (The problem with account-sharing: what if one of the people sharing an account were to misbehave? Would the innocent be blocked along with the guilty, or would the guilty escape blocking to spare the innocent?)

If only one Gulliway member has used this Wikipedia account thus far, I suggest that you edit your userpage so as to more clearly indicate that this account is being used by only one person -- and do not share the password. You might also want to post a request at Wikipedia:Changing username: you are not Gulliway, you are Bob (or whoever) of Gulliway.

If more than one Gulliway member has used this account, one of you can retain this account (I suggest changing the password, and -- as before -- the username), and the other is welcome to continue editing from a new account.

Sorry for the inconvenience; thus far, you look to be a good productive contributor, the type we need more of. DS (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the userpage have updated to follow your directions Gulliway (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]