User talk:WorldTraveller101/Archive 1

For April 2013

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Air France destinations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newark (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) 21:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, DPL bot, I fixed it, so it should be directed to the Newark, New Jersey page. Thanks. -Connor (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Logan International Airport, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. JetBlast (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jetstreamer. Your recent edit to the page Turkish Airlines destinations appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The supporting reference you provided does not back your edits up. Jetstreamer Talk 01:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jetstreamer. As I have learned at this point, the source is as you stated, unreliable. Unfortunatley with cargo, it is much harder to find a reliable source. Thank you. (WorldTraveller101 &#124; What is up? &#124; How do I help?) 19:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP has the right to blank his talk page. 166.205.55.33 (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He does have the right to, but why? He wasn't getting block warnings or anything. However, you are right. -Connor (WorldTraveller101 &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 19:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

21:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)21:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Aer Lingus at MCO
If you read the source (the airport's official website), Aer Lingus is at Terminal B (eventhough Airside 1 is at Terminal A). 68.119.73.36 (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it switched from Terminal B. Airside 1 is always Terminal A. Thanks. (WorldTraveller101 &#124; What is up? &#124; How do I help?) 14:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a source saying it switched! See http://www.orlandoairports.net/ops/airlines.htm (IT IS TERMINAL B!!!!!) 68.119.73.36 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's where the baggage claim is: Terminal B. But the A or B represents departure. Airsides 1 and 2 are always part of A. Plenty of A1 AND A2 airlines have baggage claims on the other side. Thanks.(WorldTraveller101 &#124; What is up? &#124; How do I help?) 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Check in is also at Terminal B. Source: http://www.orlandoairports.net/ops/images/maps/wayfinding_maps.pdf and http://www.aerlingus.com/travelinformation/knowbeforeyoufly/orlandointernationalairport/#d.en.6381. However, we can put a footnote of some kind to avoid confusion. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. Can say although check-in and baggage is in Terminal B, it departs from Airside 1, which is part of Terminal A. Thanks. Also, nice job sourcing. (WorldTraveller101 &#124; What is up? &#124; How do I help?) 20:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * However, other airlines is the same. AirTran Airways's check in is at Terminal B but uses Airside 1 gates and Virgin Atlantic Airways check-in is at Terminal A but uses Airside 4. All of these airline check in and gates are so confusing. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Made footnotes for those airlines. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Logan International Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marriott (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) 09:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

800 edits only?!
Really, you joined only on 23 March 2013? I didn't know that! :O Arctic   Kangaroo  11:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. If you look, my first edit was on 23 March 2013. And my edit count is at 892. But yes I have only been on for 1 month and 4 days. Thanks. Oops?WorldTraveller101Follow my work? 11:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm now over 1000. Let's see when I'll reach 10000 WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 17:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Arctic, I have been editing Wikipedia since August 2010, but this is a clean start account. I've actually had six thousand five hundred edits. I'll update the information. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 21:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
JetBlast (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Put this on the wrong talk page and moved it. --JetBlast (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

About your RfA listing...
I have unlisted your RfA from WP:RFA due to the page Requests for adminship/WorldTraveller101 not existing. Please refer to Guide to requests for adminship for instructions on how to create an RfA nomination page. Steel1943 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: I'd be Careful
Thanks for the advice, but, shrug, I'm just here to write an encyclopedia. At the end of the day, I'm really not too scared of the janitorial staff. If, in the service of trying to provide our readers more information about their world, I step in another hornets' nest: so be it. Hey, Kendrick8 isn't taken right? -- Kendrick7talk 05:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A clean start isn't always a bad idea. Thanks. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 11:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, please reply at your talk page from now on when I leave you a message. If you left me a message, I'll reply here.

PorPor2
You messed up. :) Can you come to Sockpuppet investigations/PorPor2 and provide the missing information? Amalthea  21:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hahahaha! I can't believe there was already one open. OK. I know that the user has almost 10 sockpuppets, including the Thaipilot and PorPor accounts and various IP addresses from Thailand and the Philippines. I hope this info helps, as I will put those users and IPs in, so those are all blocked. Thanks. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 21:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please withdraw your threat
I see that you added this threat to User talk:Jenniepierce567. I'm asking you to remove it per WP:WIKIHOUND. This is particularly egregious behavior on your part after your sloppy vandalism report against this user, which the blocking admin later found was in error. I'm aware that you don't like this user's edits but posting a message like that after you were in the wrong isn't going to help you the next time you want to do this. Thanks, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sloppy vandalism report? What the heck are you talking about? The user has a long history of making unconstructive edits and in some cases, vandalism. Administrator Jeepday did not say that no action should've been taken, it's jus that different action would've been taken. You almost seem to be saying that the user has done nothing wrong, when this user has been warned for months about it and when I went to report her, I did not intend for a week block, rather I would've preferred a discussion (although, this user never responds to anything, so that would be kinda tough to attempt).
 * The Main Point: The user needs to remember that he/she is being watched, for just because a block was warranted and lifted does not mean that they are completely off the hook. They will still be watched for anymore vandalism and unconstructive edits. That isn't to say that a repeat could warrant a 24 hour block. I will at least change the wotding to make sound as little threatening as possible. However, the user needs to remember that he/she will be continually watched, since I have zero-tolerance for vandals, trolls, and persistent unconstructive editors. Thanks. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to this report. You didn't include a diff in that report, so the reader has to guess what you're talking about, but let's say that you were referring to this edit, which you responded to with this reversion. In the edit summary, you stated that "IT IS NOW CONSIDERED VANDLISM!!".
 * So a couple of things:
 * 1. Good faith edits are not vandalism. This is covered in the third paragraph of WP:VAND.
 * 2. That edit was factually true; It took me all of 30 seconds to verify it and add a reference.
 * In short, you had a user blocked for making a completely legitimate edit. The blocking administrator is not faultless here either; I already had this discussion on his talk page. And it's strange that you say that "I would have preferred a discussion" when you stated outright in your AIV request that "I will once again say that she needs to be blocked for a time between 24 and 72 hours." I'm aware that User:Jenniepierce567 has a spotty history and doesn't seem to engage in talk page discussion. I don't like that either, but this user continues to make constructive edits and I all I ask that you be a little more rigorous in your anti-vandalism efforts.
 * My recommendation is that you let others watch this editor for now. This whole incident could give the impression that you're hounding. I know that you're not, and that you're just passionate about keeping things clean, but there are plenty of actual bad guys out there to keep an eye on. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is I'm glad you advocated for the user, but it seems like she had gotten numerous warnings and no real discipline. People often don't change until real consequences are implemented, and it may or may not be this way in this case. The reason I said "I would have preferred a discussion" was after reflection and second thought about it. A few things to remember:
 * That edit you referenced was indeed verifiable. However, considering her history of adding unverifiable things, it was indeed hard to anything but report the user to WP:AIV.
 * It is not possible that she had been making "good faith" edits for all of those months of warnings. I'm sorry, but it is BS.
 * The user never responds to talk pages and rarely adds edit summaries, so the user in other words, refuses to "talk".
 * I would like to point out that perhaps the user has switched to doing more constructive edits. But either way, that does not mean he/she is completley off the hook. I will personally lay low, but others will probably be keeping an eye on her. Thanks. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 01:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response Requested
Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 18:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)