User talk:VenFlyer98
This is VenFlyer98's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Quick Question
[edit]Hi! Just a quick question for you. Why do you remove a route when it doesn't have a reliable source just to add it back with a better source. Shouldn't you just get the route and add the source? Thanks! Ryanlovestravel (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ryanlovestravel: Hi, the source you used was a Twitter link which violates WP:UGC. Additionally, you didn’t include the start dates. Thanks! VenFlyer98 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I totally understand that, appreciate the reply. I was referring to an incident in March on the TPA page with Breeze. You send me a threatening message that was kind of rude for a route that was real, I just didn't have a source yet because I was new to actually editing on the platform. It's no big deal, I was just curious why you wouldn't just add a source to the existing route I wrote, instead of deleting what I wrote. No problem if you don't remember. Thanks! Ryanlovestravel (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ryanlovestravel: Oh, that in March was because you added unsourced content. That message is pre-written by Twinkle and I used a level 3 warning since that wasn’t the first time you added unsourced content. Regardless if I reverted or just added the source, I would’ve sent that message anyway since you added unsourced content. Thanks! VenFlyer98 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I totally understand that, appreciate the reply. I was referring to an incident in March on the TPA page with Breeze. You send me a threatening message that was kind of rude for a route that was real, I just didn't have a source yet because I was new to actually editing on the platform. It's no big deal, I was just curious why you wouldn't just add a source to the existing route I wrote, instead of deleting what I wrote. No problem if you don't remember. Thanks! Ryanlovestravel (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
How to display current operations
[edit]Hello. I’m not flaming like some of the other users that have posted on your page. I understand that you are upholding Wikipedia’s policies. However, surely there must be some balance between enforcement of policy and removing verifiably accurate information. I noticed that many people choose to add a “citation needed” flag instead of removing an edit outright. In the case of BHM, I understand that the airline itself isn’t considered a “reliable source”. I made an edit because AA mainline has resumed BHM-DFW. This is verifiable outside of the airline by looking at AAL2859 on flightaware for an example. It is presently operating and scheduled to continue. Essentially none of the routes on the BHM page have any sources. Yet they are operating and allowed to remain on the page. The fact that some DFW flights are being operated by mainline isn’t the kind of thing that is going to get a news story. But that doesn’t make it any less verifiable (via flight tracking). Respectfully, why is it that the majority of the routes on the BHM page have no sources all, or other statements have been tagged with “citation needed”, but this edit was outright removed? AA mainline is operating at BHM and that can be verified, but nothing has been published by a news or industry site as it’s not “newsworthy”. Is there not a way to display AA mainline on the page to reflected actual current operations? StanleyJohaansen (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @StanleyJohaansen: Hi, first of all, thank you for your kindness in your message! A lot of people can be very defensive about their edits being reverted (as you can see by other messages here), so I appreciate the kindness! Regarding the topic at hand, yes it's a tough situation especially when an airline switches between mainline and regional operations on the route since those changes aren't usually noted anywhere by sources that would meet WP:RS. I do agree though, adding a "citation needed" tag would probably be best since it's clear the route is flying. Don't even think it's seasonal since checking AA's website shows a 319 on the route throughout the entire winter including next summer (as far as their schedules currently go). Think a CN tag is the best bet at this point.
- Thanks! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC))
- That was very reasonable of you. Thank you for your diligence. Best wishes. StanleyJohaansen (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion for BNA
[edit](Full summary at Talk:Nashville International Airport)
So I know it has been a few weeks since the whole discussion about whether BNA should have maps. But I now have a new idea: Only one map, the international map. Less clutter, less maintenance, still informative. I brought this to you because the talk page only received attention by 2 editors, neither of which regularly edit this article. By the way, the RfC that you suggested sadly did not get the attention for a full consensus, with only one legitimate comment from LoneOmega on my talk page, but he did like the idea of maps.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope you consider my proposal thoroughly. King airaglub (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- @King airaglub:
- Hi,
- I did see the talk page the other day. While I still recommend an RfC, I’d say doing it over at a place like WP:AIRPORTS would be much better for visibility than your own talk page. However, even with your new proposal I’m in agreement with what The Banner said. I think it’s just repeated information from the table. I’m also not a fan of just a map for international destinations and feel it should be all or nothing. An international map would provide no additional information that isn’t already shown by the table. Just my two cents. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC))
User:Erobran
[edit]This user continues to add Turkish Airlines service to Lima without providing an exact date for it. I gave him a link to the discussion on WT:AIRPORTS but he continues to argue against it. Can you take a look? Thanks. Jz0610 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)