User talk:Real world sanity

Welcome!

Hello, Real world sanity, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Manston Airport

Hello there. Please note there is a discussion on the Manston Airport talk page about the renaming of the airport. Even if it is renamed the name of the article will stay the same as it doesn't change the historical name of the article subject. The article is not about a piece of land, it's about an airport. With the airport closed it was still historically an airport and that is what the article is about. It deserves a mention in a section about what it's post airport use may be, but the airport has not been historically renamed. If you wish to continue this you need to get consensus on the talk page. Please also see WP:VERIFIABILITY. WP:AIRPORTS & WP:AIRCRASH. Canterbury Tail talk 12:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, clearly the current and correct name for a geographical destination is relevant, and pertinient in a both a historical context, and for the sake of accuracy. I note that in your several attempts to find a reason to try and justify your edit, your reasons have changed as they have been proved incorrect. I have provided 4 relevant and valid citations, and my contribtuion is relevant and of course accurate.

As for noteworthy occurances, the event in question which lead to the banning of an entire airline from Europeon skies is clearly relevant, noteworthy and accurate.

Your recent editing history 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 article's 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. HkCaGu (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have made a correct edit to the site, complete with citations. Sadly, a small number of zealots who wish to see Manston return as an airport have decided they wish to simply ignore the fact that the name of the ex airfield has changed. This can be evidenced by the ever changing excuses they have chosen to try to use to justify their reversion to an inaccurate statement on the page concerned. To whom does one "speak" to stop this ridiculous situation with this small number of zealots? You will note that new accounts are being created simply to make the alteration they wish to make, simply to avoid the rules to point out.

note, with regard to inaccurate statements mad eby some of these people, such as "Even if it is renamed the name of the article will stay the same as it doesn't change the historical name of the article subject." you will note that I have never suggested changing the name of the article, merely pointing out in the facts panel the current name of the site, with 4 citations.

Investigation result

After an investigation, I was of course cleared of any wrong doing. Andrewgprout & HkCaGu I will accept your apologies for your vexatious accusations. Real world sanity (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factful Facts, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Andrewgprout (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]