User talk:Andrewgprout/Archive 4

Christchurch_mosque_shootings
Hi! Rather puzzled by your reversion of my edit. You claim that it is not supported by a talk page discussion, but there is one, to which you have not contributed. Please can you revert your misleading edit. Thank you!  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 01:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a solid opinion on the subject which is why I have not participated in any discussion. My participation in the discussion is up to me and whether I do or don't discuss something does not disqualify me from reverting your edit.  However it is clear that there is no consensus on the talk page for your change.  Please explain which bit of the discussion says such. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion . You wrote "The talk page says nothing of the sort" which is not how I read it. But I made an RFC.  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 02:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! I don't want to be rude, but you reverted my edit claiming "The talk page says nothing of the sort". I have linked you to a current month long discussion, in which I saw the original discussion summarised, three people supporting the change, and one abstention. I would be most grateful if you would undo your revert in view of the interim conclusions of the current rfc, or at least explain there how consensus could be demonstrated to your satisfaction.    ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥   ♥ Talk ♥ 23:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * At least two people have told you your view of what the talk page says was over zealous to put it kindly, this has been discussed much over the last months. Just wait until the rfc is finished the worst thing for you to do at the moment is to prejudge the result or overwhelm it with your POV.  These things take time, please calm down and just wait, an rfc needs to be properly canvassed and while we are at it properly titled. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am confused by your interpretation of the discussion. Do you not see 3 people supporting the change, and one person remaining neutral? "The talk page says nothing of the sort" was irritating. I'll get over it :)  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 03:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Mt Kaukau
My friend, I’m sorry to say, but you are sadly mistaken on how to pronounce this word. It is a Maori language word, and there is absolutely no excuse not to pronounce it correctly. It is also a blatantly racist statement to say there is a “Pākehā” way of saying it, so if you ever have said that, please refrain from doing so ever again. Mispronunciation is harmful. It is lazy, shows no respect to the mana of the tangata whenua, and is misleading for people who mispronounce it, as they come to wikipedia to see how it is pronounced. You are responsible for misleading people. Now I have to put in citations to ensure my edit isn’t removed. Whether or not you are Maori is irrelevant; we must treat words of this language with respect. If you still don’t believe me, check out the below. https://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?idiom=&phrase=&proverb=&loan=&histLoanWords=&keywords=Kaukau Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mount Kaukau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ngaio ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mount_Kaukau check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mount_Kaukau?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting my edit unnecessarily: SFO page for Southwest Airlines
Please read this carefully: Similar to the case for others I have read on here with the same problem with you, I don't appreciate your insulting comment when inappropriately reverting my edit. I provided a link along with the text insertion for a route that is currently, indefinitely suspended, as a service to the public looking up nonstop routes between AUS and SFO. As my link indicates, there are several suspended routes as a result of the [Boeing] 737 MAX grounding, and many of them may remain suspended through October or later. It is no different than the dozens of editors indicating when a route begins, ends, or is resumed. You could have--with common courtesy--had the decency to contact me first, to inquire why I made the edit-- for if you failed that is, to take the time to look at the link and my reasoning.PhoebeMin1 (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * yes but none of this is encyclopaedic. If you add something that is going to need to be taken out in a week or a month you are adding directory type information and Wikipedia is not a directory plain and simple. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting of Milano Malpensa page
Good morning

I wonder wherever your undos in Milano Malpensa page are worthy (in this case please provide info) or just your spoils. 1) Not only references for charters are provided (as stated at the beginning of the destination table), but ref.s for the charter under discussion are provided directly from the Malpensa official website. Given that I think that no more ref are needed, if you are not convinced it is a your problem. 2) Other info precedently added (e.g. NEOS service to Berlin Schone) are fake (no info not on NEOS website, NOR in Malpensa). 3) Some services are over. 4) Bare references are now filled

I'm reminding you that arbitral removal of contents is a vandalism, YOU have vandalised the page. Provide reasonable argumentations on your edits or stop them. Hope to never come back on this again in the future.

Reverts to Japan Air 123
Hello. I see you reverted my edits to Japan Airlines Flight 123 earlier, due to my "putting words into the mouths of the report writers". I have since added some direct quotes from the report, and added a load of page numbers to new and existing citations in an attempt to be more thorough and to try and avoid that perception. I did use to be a prolific vandal-fighter on here about 8 years ago, and completely recognize that I am probably out of my element in regards to editing. If you have any concerns regarding my most recent edits, please let me know so I can rectify anything that may be out of line.

Best regards,

-- Vandalism destroyer  15:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ngurah Rai International Airport
Hello. You recently removed Thomas Cook Airlines from the article, stating that "This an encyclopaedia not an airline directory", which I think is not a valid reason why you should remove that, since there are references stating that this flight does exist. Can you please give a valid reason why you remove that? Thanks. Cal1407 (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The reference says there is one flight.  Documenting this one flight is not what an encyclopaedia is for. Sorry but this is clear. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

JFK Terminal 4 and Delta
Almost all flights from Terminal 4 in JFK airport are internaltional. Only a few exceptions, all by Delta. That's why it was mentioned in the text that you deleted (note that 3 domestic destinations were here for a long time, and I have only added Cleveland since DL5149 flight is now from terminal 4 instead of 2 . Gaz v pol (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * not everything that might be true is worthwhile and encyclopaedic. Your picture is Original Reasearch. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

comment moved from user page
made this comment on my talk page - I have moved it here.

Hello I have a question what is with the flags on some airport sites. Folk have added to dfw in past and they are removed yet they live on on other sites most recently seen Bentonville AR airport.

Ric the Manual of style MOS:FLAG severely discourages the use of flags as decoration, which is how they are often being used. It is probably safe to say most of the flags you see on aviation related articles are pretty counter to the MOS. I would be very very careful adding flags to articles unless you can justify their use by saying the detail actually represents the country displayed. ie a athlete winning a medal at the olympic games - is certainly regarded appropriate. People dying in an aircrash probably not. There are lots of exceptions in real life though. The MOS is even harder on sub national flags such as those of US states. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no plans on using state flags. I just find it odd that some airports ala dfw no state flags and other airports use them. I figured the anti flag police would be more consistent but I guess not

Larnaca Airport
Why am I not allowed to use a timetable as a reference but you're allowing other users to, no flights are present after the date I provided, another editor on the page changed one of Norwegian's flights from seasonal to year round citing the timetable as a reference, when I did this for a Wizz Air flight on the Luton page you stated it as original research so why are they allowed to do that if you said I couldn't? Air7777 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is original research - what you need is a sensible WP:SECONDARY reference to back up your claim. Does the reference actually say that or are you inferring a date from an inability to book - the two things are very very different.  Someone else did something and got away with it is not a rationale that will get you very far here.  Andrewgprout (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

UA Mainline Seasonal Service to IAD
This service is existing for the summer season. I have been tracking this service through mwaa.com website; which is the official website for the Washington DC area airports. Shakbok (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)shakbok

Mount Cook Airline and Air Nelson
Hi re your recent reversions, I would like to know why, in the case of Mount Cook Airline, you think that a reference from Air NZ from 2017 is more appropriate than that of a journal from 2019 (which is based on ch-aviation data). Both Airliner World (and ch-aviation) are well respected aviation sources and more up to date and valid than the 2017 ref you advocate. With regard to Air Nelson you say it is a 'questionable edit', yet it is simply an update of the 2017 ref from the same source. Please revert and let my edits remain. My journal source is already featured in 500+ airline articles without comment or complaint Ardfern (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are doing it looks like you are just changing 2017 to 2019 randomly and for all I know that is what you are doing there is a whole selection of people who do such things. Thus my questionable quote.  For Mt Cook the Air NZ reference is by far the most accurate over time particularly as the number of ATR72s is currently in much flux as some go and some come.  Further to this the Air NZ link fleet is soon to be merged into the Air NZ proper fleet so all will change then.  Please remember Wikipedia is not a directory and simply copying data from one directory to Wikipedia blindly is not really helping anyone here neither readers nor editors.   The Mt Cook Reference reflects the situation as described in the text of 30 April 2019  - the retrieved date has not been updated, a situation that is all too common unfortunately.Andrewgprout (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I thought Planespotters.net had been rehabilitated, it is now so widely used in Wikipedia. Who knew. Your suggestion that I might be changing dates in refs randomly and copying data blindly etc is frankly insulting - I am not one of 'a whole selection of people who do such things'. Your assertion about the Air NZ reference being the most accurate 'over time' really is nonsense. I have been amending fleet data using the Airliner World guide every year since about 2015, having up to date fleet info seems to me to be a basic prerequisite for good articles. Please revert to my refs. Ardfern (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw I trust you can now see that the refs I am using (Global Airline Guide) are correct and acceptable and can be used, are are not just randomly changing 2017 to 2019 etc etc Ardfern (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * re Mount Cook Airline the ref that you insist on using is simply not up-to-date and incorrectly shows the number of aircraft. It is plain wrong to maintain incorrect data in the article when it is clear that the Global Airline Guide ref is more accurate and up-to-date. Please revert your reversion of the ref I entered. Ardfern (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to talk
Hi

You are invited in Milan Malpensa airport talk about a service to be considered seasonal because of a temporary suspension.

thank you Riktetta (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Air Kiribati
Hi. Because I am a frequent traveler of Air Kiribati since 2000 (I visit every year the Kiribati archipelago including Christmas Island), so I have quite a good idea of the status of this air company. Of course I have noticed many errors or imperfections in the article and I thank you about your last edit. But what you have cancelled (the flight to Nadi) was not completely false (but unsourced and not very updated). The big problem : for a small company in the middle of nowhere, the good sources are nearly impossible to find out. Nevertheless, I have seen that your edits are always accurate. May I ask you why do you have an interest in this air company? Thanks again and yours.--Arorae (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arorae I envy your visits to such remote places - I have often thought that a great experience would be flying to Honolulu via Nadi and Christmas. You are right that references are often hard to find, unfortunately some stuff we know is almost certainly true needs to be left out of Wikipedia because it is unverifiable. This is not only because no one can check it is true without a valid reference but if there is no reference that can be found it is probably not encyclopaedic enough for entry into an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is made up of WP:TERTIARY detail that has been primarily written about and digested by WP:SECONDARY sources. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You do not answer to my question : I perfectly know the rules about what it is encyclopedic or not (and primary, secundary and tertiary sources. But thank you nevertheless for your reply.-Arorae (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

33aircharter
Hi Andrew Explain why you revert edit made? You revert the edit back to page with Air France which no source is found. both Air Canda and Eurowings has sources. Eurowings will continue its Munich flights to Barbados from last winter season.--33airchater (talk) 33airchater Can you please try to write so people can actually understand what you are saying. The entries I think you are talking about are so transitory they really do not belong in an Encyclopaedia of WP:TERTIARY information. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Andrew Andrewgprout (talk) Sorry you didn't understood what was written. Ok so I will not re-enter the temporarily Air Canada mainline flight but however, all other edits are accurate and can I let you know I also live here in Barbados and do some contract work for the airport? so I'm fully aware of whatever schedule flights are available, I've not gotten any info about Air France service to Barbados as yet if any is due. 33airchater (talk)

undoing edits with comment "not better"
I know you are using an automated tool to help you but it isnt really helpful to new editors like me if you undo 4 edits at a stroke and simply put the comment "not better"

Reverted 4 edits by Islandqueen1980 (talk): Not better (TW)

It takes me a while to do edits becasue I'm new and I'm learning all the time, other editors give me helpful steers (WP:), I learn from this and don't repeat

It doesnt seem right that someone as experienced as you can simply at an automated stroke undo work and effort and not at least take the time to explan why you thought is wasnt better

If you want to undo work in the future would you mind explaining the reason behind it, thankyou

Islandqueen1980 (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverting my edits on Japan Airlines Flight 123
Why did you revert my edits on JAL 123? My edits are referenced, not WP:SYNTHESIS, and on the CVR transcript on the accident report, it does show that the flight engineer asked to lower the speed brakes, (you can look at more information about that here)and it is quite obvious that it was from hypoxia because on the CVR transcript. The person who should not be named (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Issues of WP:SYNTHESIS by definition are referenced so your plea that the detail is referenced is not valid. You wrote on the article talk page "Possibly because of hypoxia which I’m assuming you think that as well."  that is absolutley and clearly Synthesis so is your comment "it is quite obvious" above.  You cannot and must not draw your own conclusions from a source, this is particularly true of WP:PRIMARY sources which is what the report is.  What you are looking for and should be using is good reliable WP:RS WP:SECONDARY sources.  It would be very helpful if referencing a document such as the accident report that page numers are included - it is a big long and unsearchable document. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not know the page numbers to where these things were on the accident report, and all the references are to the accident report, and not all of this was WP:SYNTHESIS, as you did say on the edit summary: . Besides that, yes, it sort of was WP:SYNTHESIS. I did not try to do WP:SYNTHESIS, I just put in what I know, and trust me, I’m sure there could be some sources of all that information. The person who should not be named (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Jacinda Ardern, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. 142.160.131.220 (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Why i do country relation categories
Dear Andrewgprout

there are several wikipedia articles about aviation accidents/incidents that have country1-country2 relation categories and i'm constantly changing articles but i don't think it's fair you are removing my edits where several articles have the same thing still in the category section.

–Drew005


 * Please note that something existing in other parts of Wikipedia can never be used as a source or rationale for inclusion or deletion of material within Wikipedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

JFK Airport Revert
Hello, I see that you |reverted my edit that stated that AA is starting to fly direct to GCM. While there hasn't been an official source, the Cayman Island news have revealed it but without a date. The Owen Roberts International Airport article mentions it as well. You claimed that it doesn't meet criteria in WP:AIRPORTS, however that links to a project page, not a policy page. Please provide where it mentions a reason for reverting.

Also, if you try to book a flight from JFK to GCM on Saturdays in 2020, you will see that direct flights start around June. American Airlines Flight 1356 will operate it according to my research. The route definitely exists, but AA has yet to release a source. '''Note: I have no COI with American Airlines. My name is based on "The dead mans hand" and my love of aviation/the airline.''' AmericanAir88(talk) 22:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There is general consensus that the content recommendations at WP:AIRPORTS reflect sensible criteria for inclusionn within the destination tables. Unless you have a very good reason to ignore these and get consensus that they should be ignored in such a case I suggest following the criteria set out there would be sensible. WP:V and WP:BURDEN also apply here and above you admit you do not have a source supporting the starting date of the route.  just wait and re-enter the detail when a proper sensible source can be found. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

May i add foreign relations to British Airways Flight 2069?
British Airways Flight 2069 was an attempted hijacking of a British Airways Boeing 747 bound from London,United Kingdom to Nairobi,Kenya which was perpetrated by a Kenyan National. The incident happened over Sudan.

Is it okay to add relation categories to this article?


 * Where in the article does it discuss anything of interest about the relations between the said countries? Something simply happening there is not really enough to my thinking.   In the absence of evidence that there was discord or unusual co-operation or something similar between the countries I would say no, but it is not entirely for me to say.  The way it should work is that you add the change you want - tell everybody in the edit summary what and why you did it.  If nobody reverts or discusses it with you all is probably OK and the detail will likely stay.  If someone disagrees they may discuss the detail on the talk page or maybe just revert your change.  When a change is reverted it is vitally important that you don't just revert again it is best to either just leave it or if you truly think it is important discuss why you think the detail is important and why it belongs on Wikipedia.  It is always up to you under WP:BURDEN to justify the inclusion. I would also start off slow change a couple of entries if no one objects do a few more.  Mass changes like yesterdays are a good way to attract the sort of attention you don't want. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia High Point
Hi, you reverted my edit to Elevation Extremes by country, claiming that it was unreferenced. That was not correct. A very detailed reference was supplied. Viewfinder (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC) A personal blog and amateur gps measurements don’t cut it as a reliable source I’m afraid. Take to talk. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am a topographic researcher with long experience of mountain pages on Wikipedia, and I can tell you that modern GPS summit measurements by experienced GPS users are far, far more reliable that traditional elevations that date back to pre-GPS days. The problem is getting these elevations out of the "reliable" textbooks. The previous height, "about 3000", was my best estimate based on SRTM data, but it has stuck for many years. Most of what you would probably consider to be "reliable" sources, e.g. World Atlas, support an older, traditional elevation of 3133 metres. The logical extension of your position is that we should go back to this old elevation. But it is not just inaccurate, it is just plain wrong. It dates back to the days when there was no GPS technology. The situation is very similar to Mount Damavand, which has a traditional elevation of 5671m, but modern surveys, including an official Iranian survey, support a lower elevation of 5609m. The latter has been accepted by Wikipedia. GPS technology has disproved many other traditional summit elevations, including one that is 800m too high but still persists in "reliable" textbooks. Where SRTM and other satellite data proves that modern GPS surveys are more accurate than figures which date back to old textbooks, please do not let us on Wikipedia slip back into supporting the latter. In any case peakbagger has long been accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source of summit heights. Viewfinder (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * What you say is all very interesting but none of that makes any difference - simply find a more modern WP:RS that says it. What you describe above is most definately WP:OR.


 * It is not OR because I did not conduct the survey myself, and the survey has been accepted by peakbagger. Please tell me, yes or no, do you accept my assertion that peakbagger, which upholds the Gilbertson survey, is a reliable source of summit heights? If the answer is no, then we have a serious issue because peakbagger is used as a reference on very many mountain articles. Viewfinder (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm confused - the detail I removed was not referenced to Peakbagger so I don't know why you are talking about it. But on that subject I would seriously question whether peakbagger can really be called WP:RS as it appears to me it is just a site for logged in users to self publish their achievements. Self published material almost never can be used as WP:RS. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am talking about peakbagger because you asked for a better reference. The material on peakbagger that I am asking you to accept was posted by the proprietor of peakbagger, not by a self publishing peakbagger user. Therefore it is not self published material. Viewfinder (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Isn't that the epitome of "self published"?


 * Here Peakbagger is a secondary source because its proprietor is publishing another person's research. I repeat that it is widely respected on Wikipedia . So which do you consider to be a more reliable source of summit heights? The Times Atlas of the World, which copies other so-called reliable sources that ultimately go back several decades or even the 19th century, or an experienced modern GPS user who goes to the summits? Evidently the former. Well you are just plain wrong.Viewfinder (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not up to what I think is the most reliable source. Although I have serious doubts that GPS derived heights without locally derived additional coordinate help can derive an accurate altitude to the specificity you are claiming here.  Wikipedia is clear that it requires references to be to established published sources.  Think about it for a while and you will understand why, it is to stop the sort of edits I originally reverted here.  The Atlas reference will win every time.  A new Altas will probably be more reliable than an older one but even an old Altas will have references more reliable (not necessarily correct - correct and reliable are not the same thing they are very very different and Wikipedia requires reliable) than any "well respected" (by who) website created by fan boys and "topographic researchers" what ever that is in their spare time. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * We at Wikipedia strive to be correct and up to date, not to reproduce outdated material copied for lists of mountains that appear in august publications. My Times Atlas of the World (1994) gives the following heights: Mount Damavand 5671m, Ras Dashen 4620m, Ulugh Muztagh 7723m (!), Jaya Peak 5030m. It may not be the most recent edition but it was published after these elevations were disproved by more accurate surveys. The elevations given for these mountains on Wikipedia are now stable. The claim that Jabal Sawda is the HP of Saudi Arabia is based on the claim that it is 3133 metres, which is inconsistent with all modern satellite DEM data. Discrepancies among modern GPS surveys suggest that their claimed accuracy is often exaggerated but it is still accurate enough to also be inconsistent with 3133m. It follows that the evidence given in support of the claim that Jabal Sawda is the Saudi Arabia HP is flawed, and that Jabal Ferwa is the more likely HP. This should at least be footnoted. Viewfinder (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ahhh no - afraid not. Wikipedia expressly says it does not do as you say "correct and up-to-date".  Wikipedia does only reliable and verifiable  WP:V  WP:RS. Until you understand these core principles you will have considerable trouble on Wikipedia.  On Wikipedia there is no hurry just wait and see if the new supposedly more accurate heights are accepted by proper reliable published sources and if they are you are welcome to add or replace the current figures, but not before. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * please can you go to peaklist and tell me if you think it is a reliable source of summit heights. It was a collaborate project to list every summit in the world with a topographic prominence of at least 1500 metres. Viewfinder (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Western Airlines Flight 2605 and Aeromexico Flight 498.
Western Airlines Flight 2605 was a International Scheduled Passenger Flight operated by a McDonnell-Douglas DC-10 from Los Angeles International Airport,California,United States to Mexico City International Airport,Mexico which crashed during landing at Mexico City International Airport on October 31st of 1979, The Crashed killed 72 on board and 1 on the ground and was investigated by AFAC, Mexico's Aviation investigation Agency.

Aeromexico Flight 498 was a International Scheduled Passenger Flight from Mexico City International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport via Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla Guadalajara International Airport, Loreto International Airport and Tijuana International Airport which collided with a Piper PA-28 Archer over Los Angeles,California,United States on  August 31st of 1986. The Aeromexico DC-9 then crashed into a residential area of Cerritos while the Archer crashed into a nearby Elementary School Playground killing all 64 on the Aeromexico DC-9, the three occupants of the PA-28 Archer and a further more 15 on the ground. The crashed was investigated by the NTSB, The United States Aviation Investigation Agency..

I think it's necessary to add the Mexico-United States relation categories to these articles


 * As has been stated several times already to you over the last several days by at least 4 experienced editors (Please stop and listen to what is being said to you) - the catagory "mexico-United States relations" is a category that reflects international relations issues between the two countries, such as diplomatic issues, trade deals, border issues for example. But a plane crashing does not automatically enter into this territory.  It may on occasions - but in those occasions the article would need to cover significatnt details of an issue at a political/diplomatic level between the countries.  This is not the case in either of these articles. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Philippine Airlines Flight 434
On December 11th of 1994. Ramzi Yousef, A Pakistani Al-QaedaTerrorist who was also responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing boarded Philippine Airlines Flight 434. A Flight form Pasay to Cebu,Philippines operated by a Boeing 747. Yousef boarded under the name Armaldo Forlani. During the Flight he put a timebomb under seat 26K which is normally under the fuselage of most Boeing 747s. When the Flight landed at Cebu many passengers, including him left the plane. 256 Passengers boarded at Cebu for a flight to Tokyo,Japan. En-Flight the bomb explodes and kills Japanese Businessman Haruki Ikegami. The Bomb also injures 10 more. The bomb causes the 747 to almost be uncontrollable but the pilots managed to safely land the plane at Naha Airport. The 747 involved used to fly with Scandinavian Airlines which meant the seats were 2 rows forward then normal which meant the 747 didn't break apart

I would like to add the categories, Japan-Pakistan relations, Japan-Philippines relations and Pakistan-Philippines relations please.


 * None of what you say above says why you want to add the catgories. The catagory "country1-country2 relations" is a category that reflects international relations issues between the two countries, such as diplomatic issues, trade deals, border issues for example.  But a plane crashing does not automatically enter into this territory.  For the category to be added you would need to convince the people watching this page that there was significant discussion on isses of international concern.  It is my view that there is not in the article as it currently stands. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * well, This article is about a Pakistani Terrorist who attempted to blow up a Philippine Airlines Flight heading to Tokyo killing a Japanese Passenger. Manila police tracked the batteries of the bomb to Yousef and arrest him in Pakistan. The Bomb also used a Casio Watch, which is a Japanese Product


 * Can you please sign your edits - you can do this simply by adding four tilde ~ charachers after your entry. Also please login if you have a registered login.  It helps keep your edits together.  It is not obvious that you as an IP is necessarily the same person as your logged in self.  In answer to your answer - yes we know all that the question is where is there any evidence of inter country relations.  Simply things happening is not evidence. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash
On January 21st of 2019. A Piper PA-46 Malibu crashed into the English Channel off the coast of Jersey, United Kingdom. The Pilot was David Ibbotson, A British National. The Passenger was Argentine Football Player Emiliano Sala. Recently before the crash, Sala signed an agreement with Cardiff City Football Club a football club within FC Nantes.The Flight originated at Nantes Atlantique Airport in Nantes[,France. The Flight was supposed to arrive at Cardiff Airport in Cardiff,Wales,United Kingdom. Air Traffic Control lost contact with the plane while at 2,300 Feet (701.04 Meters). Sala posted a Audio Message on Whatapp] saying "I am now on board a plane that seems like it is falling to pieces... If you do not have any more news in an hour and a half, I don't know if they need to send someone to find me. I am getting scared". at around 23:25 PM GMT, The Coast Guard was alerted about the aircraft missing from Radar launching an immediate search that was shortly delayed due to poor weather. despite being outside British Waters, [[Her Majesty's Coastguard searched the supposed crash area with two helicopters.  Liftboats from the Islands and a Helicopter from  France also assisted in the search. The Search was continued the next morning being lead by two liftboats, 5 aircraft and a vessel from the French Navy but was suspected that evening. During this search metal was found in the water but wasn't believed to be part of the Piper. The Next day, All hope for survival of the occupants were lost and the search was called off on January 24th.

Sala's Family launched a fundraiser appeal to find the body of Sala and a private search was launched on January 26th funded in donation of £259,000. A remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) was used in this search. Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), United Kingdom's Aviation accident investigation Agency claimed parts of the Piper were found off the coast of Surtainville,France. They Launched a vessel from [Ministry of Defense]] bound with Sonar equipment to find the Piper. On February 3rd, The Piper was found on the Ocean Floor. A Body was still in the aircraft, The Body was of Sala. Ibbotson's body remains undiscovered

I would like to request to add the categories, Argentina-France relations, Argentina-United Kingdom relations and France-United Kingdom relations.

Drew005 (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Flight
Heyy Andrewgprout, thanks for the edit. Doesnt Antarctica have an airport?

Thanks.129.127.32.138 (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Can we please talk?
I would like to talk about Country1-Country2 relations categories on Aviation Accidents/Incidents articles please,

Yes but we talked already above and you continue to add categories when the subject of the article does not include the category subject. Take the TAA example the hijacker of a domesic Australian flight was born in Russia and that is it. There is no evidence that the Russian Government even knew or cared about the event. To warrent such a category there would need to be significant and unusual inter Government controversy, discord or co-operation related to the incident. In all of the entries you are suggesting this is all highly questionable. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Drew005 (talk)

So, i wasn't thinking about that, sorry about that. I will now on ask you for permission before i add those categories, for  example for SilkAir 185, i would like to add Indonesia-Singapore relations due to the accident being investigated by the [National Transportation Safety Committee]], which is Indonesia's aviation investigation agency (with assistance with the NTSB and investigators from Singapore)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew005 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

So i was thinking on adding country relation categories to Airliner Sabotage Articles like Airliner shootdown pages (E.G 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident,BOAC Flight 777 and Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114) Airliner Bombings pages (E.G Air France  Flight 406,TWA Flight 841 and  Swissair Flight 330), Attempted Bombing incidents Pages (E.G Philippine Airlines Flight 434 1985 Narita International Airport bombing and Pan Am Flight  830 and Hijackings  Pages (E.G Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961, Pan Am Flight 841, TWA Flight 355, EL Al Flight 426 Hijacking, Lufthansa Flight 592, LOT Polish Airlines Flight 165 Hijacking and Japan Airlines Flight 404 since they all involve multiple Countries (Mostly State of Palestine) Drew005 talk] • [[Special:Contributions/Drew005|contribs)

Suspended flights
Reading through your talk page, I see you've done a lot of disruptive editing, and had a lot of disagreements and edit wars with people. So I think you have to make up your mind and give in, because it's not the first time that you're on the wrong side of the story.

It has been a practice for years that a suspension of flights is mentioned in the Airlines & Destination section of airports. You are not the one to decide on your own that this practice stops. If you want to change it, go to the project page and plea for your case to see if you can reach consensus. As long as you don't do that, the practice will keep existing and suspended flights will be mentioned.

Your own argument was that Wikipedia is not a directory. I told you that if that is your opinion, you should remove the entire section. But you didn't do that, because you know it's not acceptable. You know that your argument is hypocrite. So make your mind up and stop edit warring.

Hhl95 21:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC+1)

please note I was not the only editor to revert your edits as superfluous to an encyclopaedia making most of what you say above questionable. Please also note that you have broken the 3 revert rule. You may very well be blocked from editing for this - My advice would be to self revert your edit without delay. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You may note as well that I'm not the only editor supporting the practice, as others also edited (not reverted!) the information. I can repeat that mentioning a suspension of flights has been a practice for years, and not just by me because this was the first suspension I added myself. Russian suspended flights to Georgia are as well mentioned and there have been numerous other examples in the past. So you really have to discuss this in the project page if you want to change that. And once again: if superfluous information is your problem, then you should remove the entire Airlines & Destinations section. It's all or nothing, don't be a hypocrite.


 * Hhl95 13:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC+1)

WMO code removal
Hey, the WMO codes are the codes for the weather stations at those airports and add some technical info regarding the airport Zk2704 (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes i realised that. The articles in question are about the airport, the question is if the weather station code is really important to the airport article particularly because you put this detail in the info box. I suspect it is very questionable. There are probably lots of codes that the airport has for lots of different things, few of them need to be listed in an encyclopedic article. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

San Jose (CA) airport
We probably need to have page protection there for a while as various IP’s continue to revert. Blissfield101 (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

( I have semi-protected it for a week "to encourage talk page discussion". MilborneOne (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Salt Air flights to Cape Reinga
Hi, I think I would consider the Salt Air Cape Reinga flights as scheduled passenger flights as they are scheduled on a timetable and do operate daily year round. As tourism makes up a significant number of travellers by airline, especially to Kerikeri, I think Salt Air's flight wouldn't be ill-fitting in the table, although maybe a note on its existence as a package may help differentiate? --Biponacci (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * In my view a tourist sightseeing trip is not really what the table is designed to be there for - its addition is as misleading as it is potentially informative. The detail is already well explained in the body of the article and that is where it belongs. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. --Biponacci (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Asiana Airlines Flight 214. Your edits could be interpreted as 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. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about a crash of an aeroplane in San Francisco the exact details of where the originating airport is is really immaterial to the info box here. Incheon is the airport for the "Seoul Capital Area" and it was quite appropriate that the airport is simply qualified with Seoul, and not the technicalities of the whole heirarchy of political boundies which while may be correct are less useful than the also correct "Seoul".  And please be careful with how you interact with other editors you may not last long here if you continue to edit the way you are currently. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So either describe it as ", Seoul Capital Area" or ", South (Republic of) Korea". ", Seoul" alone is incorrect, in the same way "Gatwick Airport, London" (as opposed to "London's Gatwick Airport") is, too.
 * I considered the Level 3 (Warning) template at first, but backed down. you may not last long here if you continue My numbers speak for themselves; no comment, however snide, may alter that. I will leave it at that. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Again disruptive editing
Would you please STOP reverting my edits to the airlines and destinations pages? You have been warned by other users that your editing is annoying and disruptive but you continue to ignore this. Flights being suspended to an airport BELONGS in the "Airlines and Destinations" section, and your argument that "Wikipedia is not a directory" should automatically mean that ALL "Airlines and Destinations" sections of EVERY airport should be removed, because it MAKES those pages a directory! And it is striking and remarkable that you for some reason only remove my edits but not for instance the 'Flights suspended' by BA to LHR edit at the Shanghai Pudong page. Strange isn't it. You edits are annoying and you are not even consistent in your annoyance. Just because you have contributed more to Wikipedia than I have does not automatically mean you are better than me, and judging by what other users have written about you I am not alone in that judgment. Music1991 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No I will not - your edits are not encyclopaedic. Nowhere else on the whole of Wikipedia do editors add entries for seriously transitory details such as these edits.  The sensibleness of including destination table on airport articles as the way to detail the encyclopaedic need to describe the  sphere of influence of an airport has been questioned many times, the addition of this transitory information making the tables even more directory like are only hastening the potential that these tables be removed altogether. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well let me say that i wholeheartedly disagree with you, and by ignoring half of my post i think i just proved my point. You're again, for some unknown reason, only editing MY contributions and not the ones done to the BA/IB flights. Your disruptive editing is inconsistent and harmful to wikipedia. It looks like you simply hate the whole airlines/destinations section of the page and in stead of starting a discussion about it, you keep editing and editing and editing entries till the point other users simply give up and let it go. It is shameful how you force your will upon me and others and it should be blocked. Music1991 (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Which half am I ignoring? Andrewgprout (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, how dare you sending me threats through direct messages! You really want to prove your point by any means necessary? Unbelievable. Second, you know what my point is but you chose to ignore it, that you are only editing the 'Temporarily suspended' contributions I made to LX/OS/LH but you are NOT reverting the EXACT SAME edits someone else made to e.g. BA. That's hypocrisy pure and simple. I still do not understand why you behave like this. I am stating that LH/OS/LX have suspended their flights temporarily due to the corona virus outbreak: that's a FACT. I have given a source, the official LH group website, and therefor it belongs on this page, just as much as "Airline X" starts flights to "Destination Y" in "Z month 2020". You, on the other hand, want to spread fake news on wikipedia that LH/OS/LX are currently flying to Shanghai, which they don't. If Wikipedia was a printed encyclopedia i would have TOTALLY 100% AGREED with you that a temporary suspension of operations does not belong in there, but this is the INTERNET where everything changes and is getting updates AS WE SPEAK. I believe that is the whole point and the beauty of an online encyclopedia: editing and updating information as soon as it is confirmed by (a/its) source! If you do not share that vision, i strongly advice you to start working for a print version of the encyclopedia and not wikipedia. Music1991 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So which half am I ignoring - I still don't know? It is true that the tensions between an online and traditional print encyclopedias are complex and to some degree unresolved, but that being said it is uncontroversial that the detail you are entering is not encyclopaedic.Andrewgprout (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Apparently you're "great" at editing but terrible at reading: You are only editing the 'Temporarily suspended' contributions I made to LX/OS/LH but you are NOT reverting the EXACT SAME edits someone else made to e.g. BA. That's hypocrisy pure and simple. I still do not understand why you behave like this and you're not giving me an answer to that. I am stating that LH/OS/LX have suspended their flights temporarily due to the corona virus outbreak: that's a FACT. I have given a source, the official LH group website, and therefor it belongs on this page, just as much as "Airline X" starts flights to "Destination Y" in "Z month 2020". Wikipedia is constantly being updated to reflect CURRENT EVENTS, that's the whole point of it being an ONLINE, editable encyclopedia! Why on earth would this website otherwise let users edit its content?! As soon as the flight suspension has been lifted i/you/we/us users will remove those two added words again. Just because YOU don't like the "Airlines and destinations" section on the page does not mean it is wrong, useless or should be removed. Again, for the billionth time, if you want to start a discussion about how useful it is: DO IT. But until the day comes that we as a community have all decided that the "Airlines and destinations" section on every single airport page this site currently hosts is useless, you have NO right in removing my useful, fact based contributions just because YOU find it useless. And you would have been completely right to remove my or someone else's contributions if I would add nonsense to Wikipedia, but my contributions aren't spam, jokes, puns, or cartoon drawings. I have added FACTS, and that's the only thing that should matter on a website like Wikipedia. And you know it. Music1991 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I still don't know which half i'm ignoring, oh well.Andrewgprout (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

re/ transitory information
Dear Andrewgprout,

I saw that you'd reverted some of my edits to airport sites, similarly to how others on here might have had their edits reverted. I've read the above discussion and a few others, and do you know what? I agree with you re/ the need -- or rather, the lack of need -- for the information I gave.

But I do have a suggestion for you.

I saw that the reason you gave for the reversion was that 'Wikipedia is not a directory'. I found that confusing. As someone who regularly puts labels on his (I use he / him) edits, I try to relate my edits as closely to Wikipedia rules as I can, instead of trying to define what Wikipedia is. That's just asking for a consensus fight when there really shouldn't be one, unless of course you want to start edit wars...

Might I suggest that in future, you put "information is too transient / temporary to be noteworthy"? This is much more to the point, and also less likely to be debatable.

All my best, Pufferfyshe (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Reference validity
Just quick question what you think or what is actually allowed. User using IP address only claiming on Larnaca airport page that one of the ref. on official website of the airline is outdated. There is no firm ref. that route actually ended its user only opinion. Can you have a look? Or shall i ask about it at WP: airport content page? Thanks Wappy2008 (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Glasgow Airport
Dear Andrewgprout,

I would like an explanation as to why my most recent edit to Glasgow Airport was reverted. I had a discussion with Kingsif (talk) (SEE Flight Suspensions) where he concluded the same basis on which I had decided to revert the edit by an IP User. I would like you to next time read the explanation I had given to the revert, before actually using the TW feature to revert edits. I would also remind you that the TW feature is not supposed to be used when there is an edit war or a dispute in discussions.

Denver Correia &#124; Thank you ~:~:~:~ (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a place for temporary information. It is not a guide, it is not a directory nor is it news all of these things are well established.  The existence of the destination tables is questionable enough, adding such transitory directory like details only makes them less appropriate. Andrewgprout (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I've been mentioned here, I'll note that there seems to be enough user rejection of the inclusion of 'suspended' to leave it off the page until discussion is concluded; Denver, to avoid an edit war, it would be best to reach a consensus. Kingsif (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)



I wasn't trying to start an edit war, but since the IP user had mentioned of a 'consensus' being already reached at WP Aviation, and since I could not really find a thread to any such discussion, I just wanted a clarification.

Also @Andrewgprout, please don't use the rollback (TW) feature especially when the edit history of a page shows a conflict of interest (possible edit war). The rollback feature is exclusively used only for: 1. To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear 2. To revert edits in your own user pages 3. To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made) 4. To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to) 5. To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page

Denver Correia &#124; Thank you ~:~:~:~ (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

edits
Hello. To be blunt...let me ask you... What's with you exactly? Why the rudeness and uptightness regarding something like this, and ignoring No Rules? Please, sir. Stop disrespecting because of an uptight hang-up over something minor. Not cool. And not necessary. What part of it was MY comment to begin with, and there was a word I forgot to put, was unclear? So please just leave it be. Not a big deal... Just one word ON MY OWN PREVIOUS COMMENT. Not a new comment. No reason to revert what I did. Wiki-lawyering and nit-picky nonsense like this is actually against Wikipedia policy...regarding things like "No Rules". Context. "Archive" or not. Sighs... Minor and not monumental. No (real or valid) reason to revert something like this. Seriously. Let it go. Or I'll JUST KEEP PUTTING IT BACK from different IP addresses anyway from time to time, anyway. Regards..... 71.190.0.81 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * please just calm down. Changing detail in an archived thread is not really a sensible thing to do, it appears you are doing this just to be disruptive so please stop. I don't overly disagree with the tenor of your argument but you are definately going about it the wrong way.Andrewgprout (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm calm. I understand about archive, but I also understand and that very little to nothing in Wikipedia is etched in stone.  Like you are making out.   I'm calm here, sir. You are the disrupters in this matter, in attempting to bully over trivialities, instead of being cool and just letting a minor thing go.  But in your rude revert comment you said I was "being disruptive"?  Yeah, because I refuse to be bullied by arrogant nit-picky editors who do Wiki-lawyering and picayune actions like this is actually against Wikipedia policy...regarding things like "No Rules".  Context.  "Archive" or not.  Sighs...  Minor and not monumental.  No (real or valid) reason to revert something like this.  Seriously.  Let it go.  Or I'll JUST KEEP PUTTING IT BACK from different IP addresses anyway from time to time, or in a different day, anyway.  Regards.....  71.190.0.81 (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * IP has been rangeblocked.. I removed a personal attack that included a threat to sock using "actual WP NAMES that I use on other things". Meters (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Dublin - Beijing Cargo Flight
Hi ,

You recently reverted edits I made to the Dublin Airport and Beijing Capital International Airport articles, to add both of these airports as a cargo destination on each others articles. In your edit comments, you said you were reverting it because it is temporary information and is not encyclopaedic.

I'm just wondering if you could explain to me what you mean by this? I have read through WP:ENC and WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT, and it is not clear to me why this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I also checked WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT prior to making these edits, and from my reading of the section on Cargo destinations, I was not under the impression that this route was not appropriate for inclusion.

The specific route I added is a medical supply flight which has been introduced in order to bring medical supplies to Ireland, as part of the response to the current coronavirus pandemic. I acknowledge that this is a very specific type of cargo flight, and you are correct that is only temporary, but couldn't all flights be considered to be only temporary? Lots of flights only last for a short period of time, but they still merit inclusion in the tables while they are in existence.

This is not a once-off or irregular flight, but is a regular, scheduled route, with consistent flight numbers (as evidenced through the Flightradar24 url), which will be operating up to 5 times daily for the foreseeable future. The initial consignment is for 60 flights, but the flights will continue after this for as long as they are needed, and there is no end date at present. Some media reports have stated there will be up to 300 flights in total over the coming months, but while this claim is not factually verifiable, what is certain is that this route will account for a significant amount of cargo through both Dublin and Beijing for the foreseeable future, and I would be of the opinion that this makes it notable enough to merit its inclusion in the table.

I look forward to your response and any additional comments you may have, in relation to what type of evidence might be required in order to satisfy it's inclusion.

Thank you,

Kind Regards, Royboymaps (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * to quote you above "...and you are correct that is only temporary,..." sort of says it all, you add it then you take it away. That is not encyclopaedic in any meaning of the word.  Take a read of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT and Wikipedia's core values,  read it all and ask yourself what does all this mean why are they saying everything has to be verified, from a reliable source, from secondary sources  not a guide, not travel, and not a directory.  It is all of these general concepts that keeps Wikipedia trusted and an encyclopaedia.  Andrewgprout (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Flag Carriers
I notice you have just deleted the information concerned from Qantas. I was very close to deleting the same from Virgin Australia but instead corrected the grammar in the edit concerned with a comment that I had some doubt as to whether it was correct particularly as they are under voluntary administration. The editor concerned then added a reference which makes no mention of Virgin or flag carriers so I suspect we should delete the whole thing from there as well.Fleet Lists (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would delete the Virgin stuff too - the reference is very very weak - It could be argued that Qantas was once a Flag carrier but it could never be argued that Virgin ever was. The Qantas edit has been reverted - I have added a dubious template to the reverted detail and will await what developments this brings.   Andrewgprout (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank You. A discussion on this has already been started at Talk:Virgin_Australia by another editor. You may like to reply there so that we get a good consensus. Fleet Lists (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Island country
Please discuss any objections on the revert you did here. Genetics4good (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Francesco Schettino
Please view this version, which was BEFORE I edited it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francesco_Schettino&oldid=955171931

I just made ONE edit, NOT both!

And I just adjusted it!

Either it's everything or nothing.

And don't offend me.

Thank you.

Matbla7 (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * yes I know you made one edit - and my summary said "Wikipedia is not sensored" which it isn't. Thank you for trying to fix the inconsistency in the original version, it is just your fix was to fix it the wrong way.  I did not see the other s*ns*r*d word until after I reverted your edit and my comment on that edit was not directed at you or anybody in particular. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With so many items listed it is assumed it refers to Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsFleet Lists (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove victim nationality table
You have re-inserted a victim nationality table on Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303. Without any source. Where's your proof for 98 victims being Pakistanis. And remember give a source, not your conjecture. Perhaps you don't realize that when you edit, it says there unsourced information can be challenged and removed. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There are references supporting the number of deaths - I agree that these may be currently incorrect or that the sources do not entirely agree. If you have better information please fix the numbers in the table to represent the referenced numbers in the text.  Oh and yes I understand implicitly my reponsibilities in editing and I can tell that if you carry on like you are with your combative disruptive attitude you will be be blocked from editing very soon. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you already understand that number of deaths is not equal to nationalities of victims. You have added 98 victims as Pakistanis, but you have no proof at all. That is the plain truth, not dusruptive. And try to scare someone else, I'm not scared of your block threats. Follow the rules and don't use conjectures. I'll rather remove unsourced info, because as you admitted you have no proof that your nationality table is correct. I'll avoid it out of 3RR however. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

And what exactly do you see as "combative disruptive attitude". Tell me so if there is such a problem with me, I'll try to correct it. If not, apologize. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

QANTAS - Edit Reversion
Hi there, I see you reverted my edit on QANTAS. May you please explain why? It's seem counter-productive.Life200BC (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * because you made a change without any reference support - the reference says it was looked at on 10th of Feb not when you made your edit. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)