User:Sparrowman980/Archvie5

Warning
I have already warned you. Please don't troll on the talk pages of established users with generic warning templates, like you did here. I don't care nor do I know if what he or she did to you was unjustified, but you should know better by now. Thank you. -- RG2 05:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Granted, he did warn you first, but two wrongs don't make a right. Please read WP:TEMPLAR. The Evil Spartan 18:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking
Please don't remove links to deletion discussions, as you did. When the discussion is over after what is usually a set number of days, the closer will remove the tag. Thanks. -- RG2 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of largest airlines in Oceania
You keep changing sourced material on List of largest airlines in Oceania to your own unsourced assertions. Either cite a source, or stop. "Eachof those come from there amin pages" is not a source. It's not even understandable English. -- Cyrius|&#9998;

Personal attacks
Personal attacks in edit summaries such as this one are wholly unacceptable. Read up on the no personal attacks policy. If I see you do this again, I will not hesitate to block you. -- RG2 05:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion nomination
Why did you nominate an image for deletion ? It's clearly not a nonfree image. Consider this your last warning in regard to your persistent harassment of other users. -- RG2 05:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help?
I saw a short discussion on Bill's page... need some help? Maury 12:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Having looked over the histories briefly, I'm not sure any of the edits in question could be considered bad faith or a violation of any policy, formal or informal.
 * The same edit histories appear to suggest that you have carried out a number of rather questionable activities over the last little while. In addition to an outright personal attack, you have posted various warning messages on user pages complaining about perfectly reasonable edits. As a result of these actions you have ended up on several watchlists. What you have referred to as a sort of wikistalking would appear to be better described as "watchful administrative oversight".
 * I'm not sure there is anything I can, or should, do. From what I can see, if there is any wrongdoing here, it is your own. If I'm missing some larger picture, feel free to correct me. Maury 17:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Qantas fleet
OK, I finally looked into the fleet numbers, and it seems that you're reading the source wrong. The Qantas Group -- not Qantas itself -- operates 213 aircraft. The Qantas Group is composed of Qantas, QantasLink, and Jetstar. Jetstar operates 28 aircraft, comprised of A320s and 330s. QantasLink (itself comprised of Airlink, Eastern Australia Airlines and Sunstate Airlines) operates 49 aircraft, comprised of 717s and Dash 8s.

Thus, Qantas itself operates fewer aircraft. The existing number is correct; you're just reading the source wrong. -- RG2 07:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm what RG2 has stated, the Qantas Group is quite different to Qantas, as the Group includes Qantas mainline, plus its subsidiary companies. Whilst they might be flown in QF livery, they aren't actually flown under the AOC of Qantas, or by Qantas mainline, which is the criteria for determining fleet size. To give you the numbers:


 * Qantas - 129 aircraft source
 * Jetstar - 30 aircraft source
 * Eastern Australia Airlines - 22 aircraft source
 * Sunstate Airlines - 16 aircraft source
 * Jetstar Asia - 5 aircraft source
 * Valuair - 2 aircraft source
 * National Jet (for QantasLink) - 13 aircraft source
 * Pacific Airlines - 2 aircraft source - note, as Qantas now have a significant investment in Pacific Airlines, by all definitions, it is part of the Qantas Group, which includes Qantas, subsidiaries, associates and joint venture companies.
 * There, I come up with a total of 219 aircraft operated by the various companies which compose the Qantas Group, but only 129 operated by Qantas itself. For a discussion on what should be included in an article, refer to Talk:Singapore_Airlines as there is quite a discussion on what composes the parent companies, and attempts to turn articles into 'Group' articles, something that should not be done. Also, CASA sources should probably be used, as the sources from QF are current as of 30 June 2007, and some also the beginning of September, and can be outdated, whereas the CASA register is up-to-date, third party and reliable, so should probably be used if only for their impartiality and accuracy. --Russavia 08:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to Russavia once again taking a jab at Singapore Airlines, perhaps I should point out that he had an important part to play in turning that article into one on the Singapore Airlines Group, so I find it rather ironic that he is "condemning" that action now. He may wish to exercise some impartiality in his comments too. Largest_airlines clearly includes several entries which are for airline groups, including Lufthansa, SkyWest, Air France-KLM etc. Why do you disallow Qantas from doing the same, yet condone these entries by removing Qantas, while allowing these entries to remain?--Huaiwei 14:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Academy of the Canyons
A tag has been placed on Academy of the Canyons, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Dom the dude 001 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Gal.02.obser.ap.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gal.02.obser.ap.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- RG2 07:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

BP
I see no evidence that the US slogan in BP is correct. I can't find "Beyond petroleum and gas stations" anywhere on BP's site. Do you have a source? -- RG2 19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Uranium
Are you sure about your revert warring at Uranium? The source you provide says "some 40%", which seems like they're just rounding a more specific 38% as provided in the original source. -- RG2 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you don't understand. Your source says "some 40%," while the other source says "38%." The qualifier "some" implies that the value given is an approximation. Since we have a more specific value in the original source, we should use that. -- RG2 21:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Blogspot is not a reliable source. If you want to change the value, provide a reliable source that explicitly states that 40 percent is the correct value. You have not done so thus far. -- RG2 22:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. -- RG2 22:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)