User talk:Wiseoldowl/Archive 1

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Virgin Atlantic Airways. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. NcSchu 04:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not entered information that is incorrect. Continental Airlines routinely issues tickets in a code-share form and skyteam alliance form using Virgin Atlantic Airlines. I have such a ticket. While it did not cause me any concerns. I thought that the public should know that these tickets are code-shared and that check-in at airports is handled by different check-in parties. There is no way to check-in a ticket issued by Continental Airlines in Heathrow, since they do not fly into that airport or have any service personnel there. One must seek out the Virgin Atlantic check-in desk and ask the on-site Virgin Atlantic managers there how to go about handling the check-in. Wiseoldowl 05:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NcSchu. VAA is not part of SkyTeam. It has a series of loose codeshare and mileage "alliances". Your additions were, frankly, incorrect, unsubstantiated, and unsuitable for Wikipedia. The second part read like a customer service rant. Not big and not clever. richi 09:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Cont-va.jpg.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:IMG 1294.JPG. The copy called Image:IMG 1294.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking talk pages

RaseaC - Good Day. You went in reverted an edit I made to my Discussion page. I cleaned up my own talk page for neatness and I believe that I have the right to do so. The information I edited was not removed, since it is still contained in the history section. So, please keep yourself from changing USER section if the valid user changed modified the page. I believe that this is my space on Wiki and not yours. Wiseoldowl 14:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you wish to 'clean' your talk page for 'neatness', may I suggest archiving? (I wasn't sure if you prefer replies to be here or on other talk pages) Regards RaseaC 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

Hi. Got your comment on my talk page. :) I won't address the specifics of your experience at Virgin Atlantic Airways, since I'm not familiar with the history of your interactions there, but I can answer this: "if there is a large corporation, in a very competitive business, wouldn't it be a pragmatic policy to have Wikipedia scanned and "cleaned" for any information that might reflect negatively on its business and its business practices?" Yes, and this sort of thing does happen. We have a conflict of interest policy in place partially to address that. As part of that policy, there is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard to which editors may appeal if they encounter problems of that nature. (However, unfortunately, these cases are sometimes difficult to prove, and that page has quite a backlog.) Before assuming conflict of interest, though, if it isn't clear-cut (like a user named VirginAirwaysRules), we have to assume good faith. Even if an editor seems to be violating neutrality, they may have innocent reasons for doing so. Without clear COI, it's best to go through the dispute resolution process. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. For the record, I have no connection whatsoever with VAA (aside from flying them to SFO several times a year). As I recall, your edits about the VAA/Continental "alliance" were inappropriate for the article, in the opinion of several editors ... richi 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I received your second note (and its follow-ups) and just wanted to note that even if the individuals in question were connected to the airline (and I see no reason to assume so, even if they are engaged editors of the page), this would not necessarily be forbidden by Wikipedia policy. It only becomes problematic if an editor violates neutrality. In this specific case, your edits to that page were lacking some essential verification. If an editor removed neutrally stated, well-sourced negative commentary about a company, then there might be an issue. I'll also reiterate that the proper way to handle these situations is through the dispute resolution process. This always starts with a genuine effort to reach consensus on the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl 23:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]