User talk:EireAviation
[edit]
EireAviation, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi EireAviation! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC) |
Welcome
[edit]
|
October 2021
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Cork Airport. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. The Banner talk 17:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dublin Airport, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. The Banner talk 17:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, again it's noted your behaviour of bulk removal of edits, you now have multiple users attempting to repair the damage you are inflicting on pages. Sources are provided you bulk remove and can't be bothered to check the updated sources provided. Your vandalism will continue to be reverted. EireAviation (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- I advice you to stop removing maintenance templates when you want to keep your editing privileges. And start adding independent sources instead of related ones. The Banner talk 22:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Threat noted, to clarify you discount the sources of both airports and airlines. Can you provide the associated Wikipedia policy for this direction of targeted vandalism you are inflicting? This is quite a laughable proposition, you place better source needed next to services such as DLH DUB-FRA which has operated since 1967, the airline's website confirms this, the airport's website confirms this but you need a new article published to satisfy you? Quite remarkable. EireAviation (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- The targeted vandalism is of your hand by refusing to provide independent sources conform WP:RS and removing source requests repeatedly. The Banner talk 22:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- And why are you so afraid of giving independent sources? The Banner talk 22:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Further to your initial threat of my edit privileges being affected, you are engaging in an aggressive manner. Your edits are utterly confusing, multiple sources are being provided. Nowhere in WP:RS is it stated that in transportation terms, specifically aviation, that airlines or airports are unreliable in source. If you wish to stand over this direction of editing, simplify at which point you believe WP:RS is being broken. As for your latter statement, it is juvenile in nature and not related to the points above. EireAviation (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- So you think that related sources and/or no sources at all are better then independent sources? The Banner talk 23:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Again, you have made a direct point that it is not possible to remove these templates and refer to WP:RS I am asking you to refer to which basis of this you are using to vandalise Wikipedia, you made the point that I may lose edit privileges, I ask for the third time which part of WP:RS have I infringed upon. EireAviation (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- You have a lot of accusations but alas, no policy based arguments. You seem to prefer an unreliable Wikipedia. The Banner talk 23:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Going around in circles. For future reference, unless a Wikipedia policy states otherwise, I'd refrain from ad-hoc off your own bat under the guise of said policy from questioning verifiable sources, with above it is noted your edit warring had no basis under said policy. 23:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, we are going around in circles because you refuse to answer why unsourced/sourced with related sources is better than sourcing with independent sources. And you are fighting reliability everywhere. The Banner talk 00:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
You are the individual who referred to WP:RS a broad policy in nature, this is now my fourth attempt to ask you explicitly where WP:RS has been broken by my edits. I have provided multiple sources; you are discrediting sourcing from airlines and airports on no basis that exists in WP:RS. If there is one, refer to it and engage, instead of random commentary asking for opinions. I work with policy, you claim to. EireAviation (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ow, and to help you:
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources, section overview: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
- Wikipedia:Independent sources: Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an axe to grind. Emphasizing the views of disinterested sources is necessary to achieve a neutral point of view in an article. It also ensures articles can catalog a topic's worth and its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing or the contents of a sales brochure.
- I hope this offers an insight... The Banner talk 00:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Cork Airport, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 09:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- As in deliberate removal of sources to make a point. The Banner talk 09:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Your pattern of behaviour is there for all to see above, as well as with edits. You state no sources added, a laughable statement as you bulk removed said sources from multiple edits in what was clearly disruptive behaviour. You then went round in circles asking for personal opinions on sourcing outside the scope of WP:RS. You are using a wide scope policy, that has no basis here, you are independently self-determining this policy and arriving at the stand point that airlines and airports are unreliable in sourcing. If you have a direct basis, using WP:RS to state this I have asked you. You then bulk copy and paste from said policy. At this point, I will now seek to highlight your pattern of behaviour as it is utterly disruptive, damaging and seeks to use WP:RS out of context. EireAviation (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2021 (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 Dubin Airport, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Dublin Airport shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andrewgprout (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello andrewgprout, you are selectively using WP:RS to suit an agenda it does not cover. I'm withdrawing from these edits now, as clearly your only intention is to damage Wikipedia, I will now raise these issues to come to a resolution. EireAviation (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Shannon Airport. The Banner talk 14:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Your continued warnings would have purpose if such incidents were occurring, you may need to read the above to re-familiarise yourself with the contradiction you are leading. Have a good afternoon. EireAviation (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, my friend, you need to read the policies and guidelines that I have cited above. What you are doing is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Stronger, your ill founded resistance against reliability is damaging the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 14:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
ANI discussion
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
FYI
[edit]Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EireAviation. The Banner talk 12:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Look forward to it showing I have no correlation to that IP :-) EireAviation (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit (blether) 13:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
EireAviation (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, that account was renamed to this EireAviation. That previous account, is not used by me so I'm struggling to see how I'm being accused of sockpuppetry when that account is dormant and is now EireAviation, the current account I use? Please advise as the account doesn't even exist for me to use. EireAviation (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed to Jack1985IE. I verified this independently of the sockpuppet investigation. I'm not sure why you claim Jack1985IE is dormant when it's been editing earlier this month. Yamla (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
EireAviation (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have checked and you are correct the account was active in early October, I created EireAviation as I no longer had access to that account from my PC. I believe this could have been an edit from my iPad that may have remained log in to that account, would you be able to confirm if the device is different as that is the only logical explanation I could believe regarding that accounts use in early October. To clarify, the report was in relation to recent edits that are being discussed at Project Airports, which were all in relation to my EireAviation account. I stand over these edits, did not use abusive behaviour as the OP stated and as Girth Summit confirmed had no relation to me. I apologise if the impression was given that Jack1985IE was being used to engage in tactical edit wars this was never the case, and I would stand over those edits but had always assumed it had come from EireAviation. If I was being tactical, I believe it would have seen the Jack1985IE used recently, however I have no intention of behaving in such a manner. I can only apologise for the confusion here, the original reason for me creating EireAviation was I no longer had access to Jack1985IE, I had believed that the account was closed as I registered EireAviation. To be imposed with an indefinite edit ban in regards to this is extremely severe and I would hope the circumstances can be reviewed. EireAviation (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per discussion below. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Yamla - would you be willing to comment on whether the above explanation is credible, based on the CU data? It looks like it might be to me, but would appreciate your take. If you agree that this is what has happened, I would be willing to consider an unblock of this account, although I'd want to see a commitment from EireAviation to read the edit warring policy thoroughly, and to agree to abide by it. Their entire history of editing at multiple articles about airports gives me the impression that they think edit warring is fine provided you're confident that you're right about the content, and you don't go over 3RR. Girth Summit (blether) 17:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Please excuse me if I am mistaken in what is being claimed here. The specific claim matters, so let me state the claim in my words. I believe EireAviation is acknowledging that they are the person behind both accounts. I believe the claim is that EireAviation was created in 2020 because they lost the ability to sign in to Jack1985IE at that time. I believe the claim is that they may have maintained an active session, meaning they may have had the ability to edit as Jack1985IE, but had lost the ability to sign in as that user. If I am correct in restating the claim, the claim is not supported by the checkuser information. See the checkuser timeline for 2021-10-08 and for earlier today. I'm willing to share the exact information I see with you, Girth Summit, as you have access to the checkuser information, too. Otherwise, I'm trying to be careful to respect privacy. Send me an email if you'd like to see it. If I have misstated the specific claims, let me know where I'm confused. --Yamla (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Yamla - I am acknowledging that indeed both accounts are associated with me. What I am pointing out is that, I have not used that account since Mar 2020 as I lost the ability to sign in and created another account. I have confirmed that my iPad remains signed into Jack1985IE hence the two edits associated with early October 2021. The OP who submitted the Sockpuppet did so on the basis of much more recent edits, my point was that If I had been engaged in that behaviour which I was not, that the Jack1985IE account would have been much more active no? I have pointed out that I can only apologise for this and that is has not been nor ever my intention to edit war using multiple accounts. The OP listed a number of other accounts that had no correlation to me in the original request. EireAviation (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit I do further acknowledge, there has been a pattern of edit warring, not just limited to me I would point but including the OP who submitted the Sockpuppet request. This issue has been the on-going subject of an on-going conversiation at Project Airports, it centralises on the two users disputing the validty of WP:PRIMARY in relation to referncing pages speciaally related to Aviation. I can confirm that I will respect the 3RR rule, I would like to point out that a similar warning should be posted on Project Airports for the attention of the two users who also contribute to this issue specially on the Dublin Airport page to put an end to this dispute. EireAviation (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I like to add two things:
- When you still have an active session going on, you still have access to the stored passwords.
- With his remarks about the discussion on WikiProject Aviation, he in fact states that he will continue the battle against reliable, independent sources.
- The Banner talk 18:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Upon a review of the CU data, I agree with Yamla that the account that you give above cannot be entirely accurate, given the activity I can see in the logs for the Jack1985IE account from 8 October and 20 October. Have you perhaps now recovered that missing password?
- With regards to the edit warring, you are right that it takes a minimum of two to edit war. However, I'd point out that the discussion you point to at Project Airports looks very one-sided: I count about seven editors arguing in favour of removing or at least tagging those sources, and only yourself arguing in favour of their retention and/or removal of tags. I haven't looked at the sourcing itself, and offer no view on the content, but on the face of it you seem to have been edit warring in the face of an obvious consensus against you, at multiple articles. I'll add that an undertaking to respect the 3RR rule is effectively meaningless: all editors must respect the 3RR rule at all times. Best practice is not to reinstate an edit that has been reverted at all until the change has been discussed on talk - that's the kind of undertaking I'd be expecting from someone wanting to be unblocked. Girth Summit (blether) 05:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I was able to access the account yesterday via my iPad it was still logged in as the password was stored via key-chain there (to clarify, it's a work ipad that I had no access to until return to work from pre-pandemic.) It should show this in terms of activity. Regarding the undertaking required, I can confirm I intend fully to not reinstate edits and will seek resolution as priority via talk page or associated project page fully respecting the 3RR rule. I would further point out multiple users are engaging in the dispute on the article page referred to itself, including the original OP and a further user below who actively ignored the talk page before engagement. EireAviation (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, it is EireAvation who is ignoring discussion. I have explained here how it works with independent sources: User_talk:EireAviation#October_2021. Unfortunately, instead of learning something, the blame game and attacks followed. The Banner talk 17:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your above statement, again, does not tally with this data in the logs. I'm going to leave this here, and allow someone else to review your above unblock request, but I do not believe that you have been truthful in your statements here. Girth Summit (blether) 21:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
No problem, but these are the facts. I gave you my accounts, I'm not on trial here and I’m really not that bothered now at this point, to be given an indefinite ban for this is wholly ridiculous (It wasn't even related to the OP accounts listed). I'm up against it clearly with the joint-duo below, time to invest energy elsewhere, instead of this draining episode. EireAviation (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Our technical logs record log-ins as well as edits, and they store information about the device that was used to log in. Policy prohibits me from being explicit about exactly what they show, but two CheckUsers have reviewed the data, and we agree that they do not tally with what you describe as the facts. Girth Summit (blether) 23:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The Banner I really do not see where you gauge your point 2 from what I wrote in my post, I set-out the rationale for the edit warring that occurred on my behalf, I have yet to see you acknowledge your contribution to this whole debacle. This has been a seriously disappointing affair, not satisfied that the accounts you listed in your OP (re: Sockpuppet) that had nothing to do with me, you seek to now twist statements. The decision rests with moderators, I'll respect the decision that is given shortly. EireAviation (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- So you expect us to believe that you used your iPad logged in as an account you thought you were unable to log in as for some considerable time without noticing that it was not the account you thought it was. A duration for which you would have been automatically logged out of by Wikipedia policy. That would all be incredable if it were able to be true. I for one fail to believe that is possible. More likely the alternative account was used when it was convienient for you such as this edit at Gatwick Airport [1] Andrewgprout (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
That is exactly what happened here. This is a convenient scapegoat for you and The Banner to use, one single day of two edits after 18 months of inactivity on an account still logged into my iPad and I'm accused of being tactical, it's rubbish (It only came to light because of the request to look into Sockpuppetry). As my most recent edits show I (EireAviation) had no hesitation in undoing your edits (and certainly did not need another account to do so), as you undone mine and other users’ contributions on multiple occasions, which is why Dublin Airport has now been placed under special protection, thankfully. Multiple users were annoyed by yours and the Banners attitude on that page, I was accused of being Shamrock2020 and two other IP's by The Banner and I have no association to those accounts. With your edit summary that you attached there's not much point me engaging further with you, your intention with me is always clear and it is exhausting. EireAviation (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- so you are maitaining that you have not used your iPad for over a year to edit Wikipedia and in October you suddenly decided that was a good idea to use a device you hadn't touched in over a year. A device you would have had to physically log in to as your saved login, at the Wikipedia end, would have expired. Again sorry to say - unlikely. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Notice of incidents noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving Andrewpgrout (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding possible their possible disruptive behaviour that mentions you. Thank you.
90.248.204.187 (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
December 2021
[edit]hi .....I would like to get some clarification from you... could you please tell me whether charter flights can be added in an airport's article in the destinations section...?... would be great if you would answer me.... thanks Adithya003 (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)