User talk:Devanahalli2008

Welcome!

Hello, Devanahalli2008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Gatwick Airport
Hi! I decided to read your edit summary

Now, I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert your changes. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. "Western GeCo HQ location at LGW is coincidental " - IMO that is not a good justification for removing it. Wikipedia should report on coincidences. It doesn't matter if WesternGeco doesn't do aviation. They are a notable company. They lease space from Gatwick. They pay money to sit in Gatwick's facilities. They have a nice, cozy relationship. I think we need to state that this relationship exists, yes?
 * 2. "Caledonian/BCal also had LGW HQs/*" No, that doesn't mean you don't report on Laker Airways. It means you add BCal and provide a source saying why

And I found a Property Week article stating that Schlumberger had extended its lease on the building at the Gatwick airport property in 2007, and some supporting information (initial cost of lease, size of Schlumberger House, years that lease covers). With a secondary source reporting on it, it means that more importance can be attached to the information. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, your message to me was posted on my user page, and not my user talk page, so I wasn't notified when you posted the message. I proceeded to move it to the talk page. I will post a reply addressing it here. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your comments
1. "There may be loads of relatively small such companies that are located on or near various airport premises;" - Firstly, "near" would be excluded. The building is a part of the actual Gatwick portfolio. Secondly, WesternGeco is not a small company. It is a major subsidiary of the Schlumberger corporation, which is headquartered in Houston, my hometown. WesternGeco is not a small business, and it's not small potatoes.

2. "Where do you draw the line, especially when adding this information to an already very comprehensive and detailed article such as the one about Gatwick Airport?" - I include a company if it has a Wikipedia article (passes the notability guideline for companies) and if the facility is clearly on the property of the said airport and if there is a reliable source saying the company is based there. Also, the information is more important when secondary sources talk about it. Consequently I found a secondary source that discussed the details of WesternGeco's leasing at Gatwick Airport.

3. "In Gatwick's case in particular there are/have been a number of other non-aviation firms on or near its premises that, as to the best of my knowledge, did not locate themselves there primarily because of the airport, including for example CP Ships (a container shipping company that was taken over by Hapag Lloyd a few years ago) and the investment arms of several banks such as RBS for instance." - Again, "near" wouldn't be good enough for being included in the Gatwick article. The head office has to be a part of the airport property. Also if any of these companies wouldn't pass the notability criteria and get their own Wikipedia articles, they wouldn't be included either. The only non-aviation business at Gatwick I know of is Schlumberger. Also there has to be a source saying "the head office is on the property of Gatwick airport"

4. As for CP Ships, I'm going to check web.archive.org and see if it has any records of having a UK office.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I found more companies, but CP Ships, GB Airways, and maybe some others were all based out of the same complex, City Place Gatwick. I'm looking for reliable sources about the development, which now has its own section at Gatwick Airport. Once it becomes became too big, it will be was split into a new article just about City Place Gatwick. The CAA and WesternGeco are not at City Place Gatwick, but at other office buildings at Gatwick. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we can get enough material to split off a "facilities" section into an overview of all of the facilities at Gatwick Airport, I would be in favor of the move :)
 * About "BUA (1968-70), Air Couriers, Lloyd International, Overseas Aviation, Transglobe and, more recently, CityFlyer Express? This info is actually available in the relevant airline articles" - I'll check flightglobal.com and see if they have records of the head offices. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Some anonymous user named User:82.44.98.11 had removed some of the info. I told him that the article needs to discuss the office leasing aspect of Gatwick, but once the section becomes too big, it can be split into a new section. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Air Couriers, Transglobe, and Overseas Aviation do not have Wikipedia articles. Lloyd International was at Stansted Airport. I found secondary RSes that discuss BUA moving into Gatwick and the acquisition leading to BCal (that article stated that BCal was going to be at Gatwick). Also I found the source saying that CityFlyer Express was at Gatwick. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

your critcism of my edits to Dan-Air
I have replied at my talkpage. But I will just state here and now that the scrolling list of citations cannot stand in any article because of the incompatiblity problems with certain browsers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gatwick Handling


A tag has been placed on Gatwick Handling requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sparthorse (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gatwick Handling


The article Gatwick Handling has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sparthorse (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In 1974 Dan-Air Luton incident, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Antenna array (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1974 Dan-Air Luton incident‎


The article 1974 Dan-Air Luton incident‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Dan-Air
I have reverted back the article to its last clean version. With this edit you show that you have no will in understanding all the concerns many users have raised at the article's talk page regarding citation overkill for the current version. Besides that, you provided no edit summary for the reversion of the improvements User:Diannaa made to the article, and I'll take it as a violation of WP:AGF. The next time you or your sockpuppetry actions make such changes I'll be reporting you to an admin.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 1966 Dan-Air Piper Apache crash for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1966 Dan-Air Piper Apache crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/1966 Dan-Air Piper Apache crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ...William 15:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)