User talk:Andrewgprout/Archive 3

Destinations from Ercan
Hello do you know where to find Freebird destination from Ercan? Been searching but couldn't find anything. I do know Stuttgart, Leipzig, Stockholm, Brussels and Tallinn are among them (having seen those flights IRL). Thanks. André Devecserii (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

DFW Seasonal from MKE
Hello, im MattAviation.

I do understand why you would want to remove my change on American Eagle and why it would need a source. The source is right on the side area for both airports, the flight schedules. I can put the flight schedules or a booking search as the source for this change if that would makes things better.

Thank you, MattAviation — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattAviation (talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

RE: Air Newzeland
Hey A, I got your post and yes it is very complicated even I struggled with the final report which i found here ---> https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19791128-0

Is this a trusted source? As it does contain the final report along with other things.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * yes the original report was somewhat contradicted by the report of the Royal Commission, which was then contested in the courts all the way to the Privy Council. This is well covered in the article.  I think we need to be careful to not overburden the summary field in the infobox with detail when it is not even clear that it is appropriate to include a cause within the info box summary at all.  Andrewgprout (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

good point, ha so complicated, you shouldve seen the final report pdf document. all i could get was there was a whiteout at the time of the accident. i.e inclement weather. I dont know haha. ill leave that to the proper experts. to risky

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Airport destination references
Hello Andrewgprout,

You wrote: "WP:BURDEN applies everywhere. If you are not going to reference it it should be removed."

If that were the case with airport destination lists, then most if not all of them on airport articles would need to be removed, as unless you are able to change the convention on the very page that defines the rules for airport pages, WikiProject Airports/page content, your points are invalid.

You interpretation on this goes against the agreed rules and counts as disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.115.199.217 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * exactly! - WP:BURDEN is core Wikipedia policy that is not negotiable. Basically you reference it or it can be removed it is that simple. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I notice this issue has been raised on your page earlier (Unconstructive edits, also telling that you did not give a response to the latest message). Your actions are not coherent - you can't demand something only for new edits while simultaneously ignoring all of the pre-existing, conflicting (according to you) information. This also raises a very interesting question - for example on Heathrow's page there are no references and according to your stance all of the unreferenced lists should be removed completely. Well, why don't act according to your words and delete the lists? Or are you only enforcing this rule on smaller airports as perhaps the obstruction on the pages of major airports is too significant to overcome? You cannot go and start your own procedures, you must first bring whatever matters you see up for discussion on WikiProject Airports and reach a consensus before making contentious and arbitrary edits on individual articles. 86.115.199.217 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - WP:BURDEN is core Wikipedia policy, WikiProject Airports is local advice and cannot replace (nor does it conflict with) WP:V - if anything it is you that is being disruptive by deleting references please do not do that - you are likely to be banned from editing as it is considered vandalism.   Andrewgprout (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrew continues to vandalize airport articles. Please see El Alto International Airport for his most recent editing war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.146.73 (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Gatwick Airport
Hi, I've reverted your reversion on Gatwick Airport, as I feel the drone incident is notable under WP:DEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE and, though I haven't added multiple sources to the article, WP:DIVERSE. If an incident which can shut down the UK's second busiest airport for currently nearly a whole day isn't notable, I don't know what is. Also, I must query your use of WP:NOTNEWS - there are much smaller incidents which manage to make Portal:Current_events. Osarius - Want a chat? 16:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Notification on discussion regarding flags in airline alliance tables
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I have begun a discussion regardings flags in airline infobox tables for airline alliances here. That way you can contribute to the discussion.

Thanks, --Ncchild (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Allahabad Airport
Hello there. What is your opinion on this content on the article? It reads more like a chronology and the user has vouched on their talk page to edit war to keep re-instating the same content. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 04:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration?
Hey Andy, now I know some other users dislike my Editing. I was wondering if we could work together on some summary pages on airliner accidents as some are very long.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a list of long over-detailed summaries:


 * Air India Flight 855
 * Copa Airlines Flight 201
 * Garuda Indonesia Flight 200

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Dallas/Fort Worth
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ''There is nothing in WP:V or WP:BURDEN that prevents having a side citation in this case. The fact is literally right there. Stop it.'' Randstrand (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * since when is adding a reference disruptive I wonder.Andrewgprout (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

EasyJet MAN-SXF
Hello, would you say this is a reliable secondary reference for EasyJet flights from MAN to SXF being moved to TXL? https://airportrumours.blogspot.com/2019/02/easyjet-changes.html

MAN-SXF is also still not bookable after 30 March where it will start flights to TXL after this date (and I know for a fact that the route is 100% moving to TXL) --MKY661 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

the "rumour" word in the title and the fact that this appears to be complied as a self published blog makes the source questionable. Personally I wouldn't tie yourself up in knots keeping the tables accurate and up-to-date - Wikipedia is not a directory and up-to-dateness is what directories do. Encyclopaedias on the other hand summarise and distill information at a more digested tertiary level. So my advice would be wait till it is obvious from the timetable that TXL is served and change it then. There is no hurry best just to chill. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Cham?
I'm sorry but could you elaborate what you mean by that please? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * simply a spelling mistake from writing on an iPad - they are dangerous things to edit on. The full message should have been something like".....Convention suggests you discuss info box image changes before making them on aviation pages"  Aircraft images have proved often to be quite contentious and it is mostly best to leave the existing image alone without a very very good reason to make a change.  While you are absolutely allowed to be bold even here, I think you need to be very very careful not to be seen to be making changes for changes sake.  Your image (which has at least the apperance of being suspect copyright wise) is not in anyway an improvement on the longstanding one which has absolutely unquestionable copyright clearance.  While I know you are not trying to be disruptive, there are aspects of your editing that are, I do take note of the note about your autism, but that can not and will not make a difference to how you are treated here, this is the big bad world that often does not make allowances for such things. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Saudia 163
You changed the edit on saudia 163 even though it was good. Why Emojibop (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * assuming you are talking about [] - because there is very little evidence of any pilot error here. The summary by definition is a summary and this was an "in flight fire"Andrewgprout (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits Phnom Penh International Airport
Hey, this user Vicheasambath won't stop continually adding this unsourced and mostly false content. Do you know the right place to report this user to admins? Ajf773 (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I have reported him to the edit warring noticeboard []. We will see what happens there. I would just leave it till someone else sorts it out at the moment - we need to be very careful of edit warring ourselves. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Groundings
Really not getting your mass edit war style reverts by going after every single edit I did and citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The info is very relevant to the fleets on the airlines who grounded them as part of the 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY is clearly not against that. Is it simply unhappiness that the article survived the AfD that you were very against it? --Bohbye (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah right. Look at how many people had deleted this detail already before me and think about that for a nanosecond. Understanding what is or isn’t encyclopaedic is an important skill, and this detail which will inevitably be temporary is not encyclopaedic. Andrewgprout (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's your biased opinion based on the AfD and your behavior, and following around to revert edits by another editor attempting to hide WP:3RR is still violating WP:EDITWAR. --Bohbye (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about.Andrewgprout (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Insulting my intelligence
I am sorry but who on earth makes a comment like this: 'your autism is getting in the way of sensible editing'. Do you know how much this offends me. You don't have it. You don't know what it is like to have it. I cannot believe i've recieved a comment like that on wikipedia. I came here as I thought everyone was somewhat respectful of others. I undid your edit as Jeff had a point. What you want get rid of the time on the Atlas air 3591 image I uploaded? I am being reliable and for you to straight out insult me by saying my disability is effecting sensible edting screw you. To say my edits are not sensible makes me sick. I spend hours getting images and doing my research. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

So you’re gonna ignore me eh? Well I’ll report you to an admin if you’re gonna be like that. You really do disgust me. I’ve suffered enough bulling back in college and high school. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:OrbitalEnd48401 has raised this issue on my Talk Page as they have been upset by your comments. If you could take time to explain what he is doing wrong it might help, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have held off answering you as I wanted to make what I say clear and obvious so that you have a better chance of understanding.  I only mentioned your autism because you have declared this on your talk page I would not normally have brought this up - while I respect this declaration and to some degree understand your situation it does not absolve you of behaving and contributing in a positive manner.


 * Nothing I said questions your intelligence as you infer the fact that you read this into the statement I made goes to supports my "getting in the way" statement somewhat. I am afraid that I do genuinely believe that your autim is affecting your ability to participate here effecively.  However I want to make clear that nothing I have said now or in the past should question your good faith, as I have said before I know you are trying to contribute positively to the encyclopaedia however the practicality of that aim is not always being met.


 * Contributing to Wikipedia is not compulsory - this means I should be able to take the time I need to answer you properly without you assuming I am ignoring you (the last 24 hours around here have been rather traumatic), for you it means that it is possible that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for you to be. But note that is not what I am suggesting - but it is something you could decide.


 * It is unfortunate that you feel bullied here, from what I can see I have seen alot of helpful people trying to point you in a positive direction but very little acknowledgment of this in your edits, You may take one tangential fact from something someone says and then blindly apply it to multiple pages but the big picture you are not getting, you need to slow down and work out for yourself why something on wikipedia might be like it is, or quetion what does this detail have anything directly to do with the subject of the article, and realise that nothing here is black and white, just about everything is on a continum and finding an acceptable place on that continum is the key.


 * And just a note - on Wikipedia administrators are editors with some extra powers and tools that make Wikipedia work - they are not and must not be considered authority figures. And also there is no natural right not to be offended in this world - in trying to enforce such a situation there would be (very hungry) dragons so if you feel offended, feel free, but I'm not going to stop saying what I believe.


 * Hope this helps - Andrewgprout (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

CRM
I didn't add pilot error, I am citing CRM as noted in A) the final report. Having just a vague and unexplained sentance in the summary is not something viewers of wikipeida want. Nothing to detailed or to explained. I am not happy with Jet not becuase he undid my edit of occupants and you did the same. Look, you take the piss out of my autisim, but let me make this striaght to you in particular. If i was so incompentent being here, if it as me undoing someones edit buddy, i wouldnt undo the whole thing, you go rid of the occupants again. I aint talking to you again. Id rather talk to Jet honestly, at least his comments are not rude or offensive. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

As a side note, being disruptive what a joke, I aint touching pilot error anymore, even though I side that it was. I am adding CRM as firstly, the argument was about PE not CRM. Get your facts right before you start running your mouth off at me. I'm sorry but you infuriate me with you nasty comments. I wont forget that comment from the Lion air edit. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to what you state above - which part of this [|this edit] did you not add Pilot Error? Andrewgprout (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop getting in my way it’s so frustrating, if you haven’t read my other messages I have changed sides as the final report is worded differently compared to here. The lack of CRM is why the aircraft crashed, had their of been CRM present the crew would’ve realised the mistake. Their done. Once jet comes back me and him will discuss the findings. Sorry but I don’t feel like talking to you after the crap you’ve said to me. Along the fact you were not really part of the ‘edit war’ in which you so claim it to be. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

RE: ET 409
Did more digging and found the FDR release by the NTSB and it shows the plane stalled so after compiling that and the final report here is my conclusion for the summary “stalled shortly after take-off due to pilot error”. If you are still not happy with that despite me taking hours of research then I’ll make another discussion about it elsewhere to bring a formal conclusion. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Larnaca Airport
Please stop posting warning messages on my page especially if you don't post on other users that being involved. As you know adding of column is nothing unusual. I have added because it was applied to all pages across USA, Canada and already some European airports and including Middle East airports as well. It is very silly that you keep reverting my edits but you have done nothing about other pages that include column, just saying. Wappy2008 (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply you were edit warring - the notices are valid. The third column is controversial, where they have survived is where they contain general timetable references only - the same references that WP:AIRPORTS suggests strongly should normally be implied unless there is a reason to question such detail, so not much is being gained by displaying them (also the placement is not ideal in my view).  The references in question here are specific references for specific detail you are not adding general references here don't banish them to the wasteland of a third column - it is not being very useful - such specific references must be adjacent to the fact being supported otherwise how do you know what reference applies to which fact.  If you have a general reference it can quite sensibly be accomodated in column 1. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whats wrong with Azur flights? Vnukovo flight is scheduled flight sold on-line on the official website. And the rest of charter flight are as any other charter flights with proper source this time. Wappy2008 (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Air India 185
How is it unconstructive? Mainly what’s wrong having the same layout? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A strict adherance to a specific layout risks a formulaic response to all situations, no matter what a situation calls for. Wikipedia is consiously very unprescriptive in the way it suggests things are done, this often means different solutions or styles are applied to potentially similar situations.  So this is more by design rather than error.  Moreover a variety of responses creates a more readable and interesting encyclopaedia from a reader point of view.


 * The most important principle here is that often it is best just to leave a piece of text or an image as it is. Many of you edits fit into the category of not much being gained by the change. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

ANI
Hi Andrewgprout, Thanks for you recent contributions. I agree with your accusation at ANI today. What are your thoughts about starting a sock puppet investigation? I've started a couple of them before and am some what familiar with the process. - Samf4u (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what to do to be honest. This certainly is slightly more perplexing than some random drive by troll, the similarity in user name context, the timings and most importantly the suggestive faux leading conversation rang all of my alarm bells (alarm bells that have proved to be correctly sensitive to sockpuppetry in the past and have OE written all over them in my opinion).  Whether any confirmation beyond my suspicions is possible is questionable, there is very little user behaviour comparison available as this didn't actually involve any content editing. I would expect different ISPs were used, or possibly proxies, so it is unlikely there would be a simple IP tieup, however I would love to know if the IPs used were both from Southern England. , who I see is a check user, commented on my accusation and did not see any reason my accusation was correct - I have to respect that view.  Perhaps we should leave it at that.  All that said if you do want to lodge a sockpuppet investigation I would support you with any details and moral support I can provide.    Andrewgprout (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insight. Every time I read the face of the moon's edit summary's my gut tells me it's OE also. Understand about Southern England, I ran his IP address too. I really want to start an investigation but I don't believe that face of moon's edits are disruptive enough to warrant one. That combined with comments have persuaded me drop the matter and move on. I greatly appreciate your support. - Samf4u (talk)  11:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Impersonator
I need your help, look I know I have an issue with dates about reliability but forget that, someone goddamn scum bag is impersonation me on here and I need your help. I know this isn't me as that idiot messed up bringing up my name in an edit and he didnt even realise theres a thing called an IP address. Is there anything you can do? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Perth Airport
Self-evident means axiomatic, not that it isn’t worth being said, nor that it is obvious. Do you have any other objections to what I added that warrants it’s deletion? Betterkeks (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe self evident to you but this is not really appropriate for the lead. Also the reference has been hijacked by the addition. And it really does not add anything to the understanding of the article.Andrewgprout (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * May I please ask that we forget about the “self-evident” bit? It’s not in the article, just in the change history.
 * The addition you reverted made the context of that policy obvious, and therefore very much adds to the article; without the addition that context is not obvious. Putting pro’s in the lead without also putting the matching con’s next or below it is not balanced, and in reality just makes the article incomplete. Maybe these two paragraphs could be in their own section further down?
 * Happy to put reference mid-sentence to make clear which bit it supports. Betterkeks (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I still see your addition as editorialising most of my immediate disquiet is because this is in the lead. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Pilot errir
Please reply

Why did you change it Emojibop17 (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not need every incident listed here, and in this case it is unclear why you added it.Andrewgprout (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Reminder that WP:CIVIL is important
Reminder that WP:CIVIL is important. I did state in my edit summary to discuss the matter in the article talkpage and later you reverted me. I will not respond to this or commentary such as "user who refuses to discuss and simply deletes warnings on talk page does not deserve the respect of waiting for a reply". Respect is reciprocal and not an entitlement that goes one way. You could have opened a thread, instead you flooded my talkpage with nonsense and now are going off on your own tangent. So be it. Every editor owns their own rapport.Resnjari (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

List of islands in the Pacific Ocean
Why did you apparently delete my earlier edit today in which I added a large number of PNG islands? Roundtheworld (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete the entries on purpose and I'm a little at a loss to explain how it happened. I suspect the initial of my three edits this morning was not against the most up-to-date version of the article.  I can only appologise for that,  It may be better for you to put it back to how you want it, as I'm still a little confused. Thanks  Andrewgprout (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Having so many islands from one country in such a list was not a good idea anyway. I am now working on List of islands of Papua New Guinea instead and will limit the Pacific Islands list to the main PNG islands. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Newark International Airport
I will add a reference but that reference there was a mistake as it said flight begin 17th of November instead of the 19th(read over reference)so fresh sources was added at later dates. 33aircharter (talk)

Replying to your message posted to me 29th Nov 2016, ongoing flights once started don't need references. 33aircharter

I also notice you revert the edit, but haven't notice I also erase a flight that end yesterday and added a flight began yesterday, which will cost you to mistakenly re add ended flight, and as i said it's and ongoing flight so it don't need a reference or an explaination, references is only a proof of flights to begin or end. 33aircharter

You removed my edits regarding Southwest's Newark to Orlando route. I had changed the destinations to reflect that it is currently only running on Saturdays and more importantly that it is not currently running likely due to 737MAX related flight cancellations. You said that you wanted to keep it "encyclopedic" but ironically that means "covering a large range of knowledge, often in great detail". So my edits actually make it more Encyclopedic. However I have remembered right now that years ago, I had a problem with citing days of the week with an airport that at the time had no daily routes, so even though people come to Wiki looking for information, I will respect your rule no matter how misguided I believe it is. BUT there currently is no nonstop service from Newark to Orlando on Southwest until August 10th, that is a fact and people who visit the page will be met with inaccurate information if it is not fixed So I am going to put that back into the article. Jthompson5254 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

What is encyclopaedic
You removed my edits regarding Southwest's Newark to Orlando route. I had changed the destinations to reflect that it is currently only running on Saturdays and more importantly that it is not currently running likely due to 737MAX related flight cancellations. You said that you wanted to keep it "encyclopedic" but ironically that means "covering a large range of knowledge, often in great detail". So my edits actually make it more Encyclopedic. However I have remembered right now that years ago, I had a problem with citing days of the week with an airport that at the time had no daily routes, so even though people come to Wiki looking for information, I will respect your rule no matter how misguided I believe it is. BUT there currently is no nonstop service from Newark to Orlando on Southwest until August 10th, that is a fact and people who visit the page will be met with inaccurate information if it is not fixed So I am going to put that back into the article. Jthompson5254 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have moved your comment here - which is a better place - I will reply a soon as able. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, I reverted your edits because as I said the detail added is not encyclopaedic, by this I meant that the detail is of no lasting consequence to an encyclopaedic article. Encyclopaedias are tertiary repositories of knowledge, they are not newspapers or directories or everything about a subject. The level of detail I reverted was seriously transitory, and would have to be changed again in a week or a month or somesuch defined and relatively short time, such detail is definitely not encyclopaedic. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI – Multiple repeated reverts that resulted in page protection, then continued on related page
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding "Multiple repeated reverts". The thread is Marc Lacoste, Andrewgprout: multiple repeated reverts that resulted in page protection, then continued on related page. The discussion is about the topic Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    05:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to further discuss your edits. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    05:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    06:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Do not delete from talk pages
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing.

Dear Andrew! Do not delete or refactor talk pages, unless other editors agree with your intentions, thank you. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    07:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It is you that is refactoring talk pages By your subsequent edits. Please do not add anchors against my comments it is impolite and rude, if you can’t see that you do not deserve to be here. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    02:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * just to note this boomeranged big time... Andrewgprout (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Consolidating mainline/regional
This user (User:Chidino) is accusing me of sockpuppetry simply because they disagree with the edits and claims there is no "consensus", even though the majority of the users who commented agreed (this user is a noted airliners.net user by the way). I have explained ad nauseam why this is in the best interests of the project, do you agree? Blissfield101 (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * if the user suspects you of Sockpuppetry he should report you in the proper way and not use it as an excuse to revert your edits and plaster his suspicions across Wikipedia, as he did. That behaviour is clearly unacceptable in my view.


 * And yes I absolutely agree that the tables need simplification, and they are currently unencyclopaedic in nature. There are a range of solutions to this and merging into an overall brand seems very sensible to me and a step toward encyclopaedic-ness. I also agree that the discussion strongly supports such merges. What is very true is that we are not writing Wikipedia for airliners.net users.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am unsure of what to do because the users who are airline enthusiasts continue to revert and claim there is no consensus, especially User:Vmzp85 (despite that the said user has been warned). Blissfield101 (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

First, as to the sock puppetry, I do not have hard evidence, and I have said that only that there are "coincidences", which I explained in full in my note to you as well as my comments on the talk page for O'Hare. A brief discussion -- one that died because of lack of attention -- led by User:Tofutwitch11 at on January 29, 2018. That conversation, with few participants (please check) reached no conclusions, considering only 16 editors voted. Suggestions were strongly made to broaden the sample population in order to reflect average Wikipedia users rather than the passions of aviation "geeks". Nine is the "consensus" Blissfield101 has been trying to insist upon.

As you are well aware (as a contributor to that discussion), it suddenly became an issue with User:Aerostar3 on May 3, 2019, 16 months after the issue reached any sort of insight, let alone policy. The article Revisions started with approximately three weeks. This is not consensus or the ideals that Wikipedia is supposed to uphold.
 * This change has not gone through WP:Airports, so it should remain as published there until otherwise. Articles should be reverted back. This has been discussed in depth before, and always ends up with keeping them unconsildated because of the noted service difference between the two. There was a point where we seperated them into which carrier operates -- which was consolidated several years ago thanks to a process I spearheaded on WP:Airports. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 03:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

List of international airports by country:
Hi Andrew. Thanks for undoing my reversion. I clicked on the new vandalism button to see what it did, not expecting it to do a reversion. Didn't intend to modify this page. I know not to use the button now. Always new features popping up on Wikipedia! Teraplane (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident
Hello. Did you read my edit summary before making this reversion? Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Simeis 147
Hi Andrewgprout. I need an explanation for your reversion of my reversion of a bad edit onSimeis 147. The original edit was by a professional disruptive editor, WP:LTA/BKFIP. I would appreciate it if you would undo your edit, unless you have expertise in astronomy. You don't lose brownie points when you undo your own edits, BTW. Thanks. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit conformed to the Manual of style which discourages links in the initial bolded text. I have edited the article restoring the deleted link in a way I think fits the expectations of the MOS. As noted by many at WP:LTA/BKFIP the editor's edits are often somewhat valid, the problem appears to be in the delivery. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good enough. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits of Toronto Pearson International Airport article?
Hi, You recently reverted two edits I made to the Toronto Pearson International Airport article. I updated a reference for the newly announced Air India service. I also added a resumption date for Air Canada’s Toronto to Delhi service as it is currently not operating, and I provided a reference for that as well. I explained my edits in the edit summary. I am curious why you think these two edits added “transitory unencylopedic details” to the article? Also, did you read my edit summary before reverting? Thanks CdnFlyer (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Did you read my edit summary? Have you read WP:NOTTRAVEL WP:NOTDIRECTORY WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The entry without the start date is valid as it is, detailing a very temporary ad hoc stop in service does nothing to influence the encyclopaedic need being filled here which is to describe the sphere of influence an airport has. An encyclopaedia contains reasonably static information while a directory has such detail. Wikipedia is not a directory. Andrewgprout (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes I did read your edit summary, and yes I have also read through WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Did you read my edit summary? I made a good faith edit in line with the information provided at Newark Liberty International Airport and Indira Gandhi International Airport (articles that I have not edited). The Air Canada Delhi route suspension is not an ad hoc stop in service, it is a suspension of service that has a stated resumption date. I looked at WikiProject Airports/page content and could not find anything stating that it is inappropriate to add this information to the article, unless you think it would preferable to state the the route is suspended without displaying the resumption date? CdnFlyer (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This individual reverted my edit as well for a suspended route that _should_ have been done back on June 7th, yet the editors of the San Francisco Airport page (SFO) did not. Therefore, with proper link provided, I took the initiative to, ensuring that the route news was not "swept under the rug" by SFO editors-- or so it seemed. I see he has been warned already on this talk page about being blocked on certain pages, so probably, we should just let an (alleged) troll's disrespect of others' work "run its course to punishment", if you see what I mean. Peace.PhoebeMin1 (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)