User talk:Zaps93/archive05

VARIG
Hi there, I need your help to rewrite the Varig pages cause actually there's no connection between the old VARIG S.A. that was grounded and the VRG Linhas Aereas that is already full integrated with Gol as G3 as well and today just a brand on some of gol's fuselage. There's no New Varig, just gol today, and the bankrupted varig uses another air operator certificate, from flex linhas aereas (newnordeste linhas aereas). So we should separate the two things! Let me know if I can help, Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostPax (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Carry on doing what you're doing as long as you can provide references, and make sure the articles are kept neat. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Montenegro Airlines destinations
This article was taken to AfD and the consensus reached was that it should be merged back into the Montenegro Airlines. This supercedes any guideline the Airlines project has come up with; indeed I hope the Airlines Project will review its guidelines in light of this. Please do not revert again; doing so is considered vandalism. I42 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to object to the close, post a message on the closers talk page and then take the close to Deletion review if it is not changed. Reverting a close decision yourself, even if you turn out to be correct, is not a good idea. If you choose to go to deletion review, read that page to understand the valid grounds for the action taken in the close. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tafa Air
Hi, I did not write that Pistina is capital of Serbia. I just looked at Pristina and found "Country: Kosovo", not "Country: Serbia". If that's wrong to you please change this too. --Albspotter (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry misread, but Kosovo is not a 'country' as in the way 'France' is. It declares it self as one but really it is Serbia. There is alot of talk of it, no one is really sure. Best look. Zaps93 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, thanks for reverting the incorrect edits made by a couple of users to this article. One of them B320 especially seems to make it their mission to revert - and it appears that your last edit was undone as well. I have tried to explain to the user a few times, and I guess the next best step would be to report them. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, we have to state the correct information which you have helped me with :) I know Kosovo isn't recognised as an independent country yet everything says it is. Well yeah, go report him as there seems to be a minor EW going on. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User Abraxas Wardark
Hey - A new user by this name popped up recently, and started editing a familiar list of articles. I have a strong suspicion that it is Rhp26/Druid.raul/Marcosino Something in yet another avatar (this might ring a bell!). User hasn't done anything untoward yet, but could you keep an eye? Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah sure, I'm not doing much at the moment anyway! Cheers for letting me know. Zaps93 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Rwandair
This source reports that Rwandair now operates her own CRJ-200s. Please look into it and update the Rwandair article as appropriate. To avoid an editing tug-of-war, I have left the article as per your last edit. Thanks.Fsmatovu (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll sort it out. Sorry for the inconvenience. Zaps93 (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes to the fleet table. The two new sources are referenced in the article. Fsmatovu (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright, as long as references are added it's all fine. Zaps93 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Air Polonia-logo.PNG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Air Polonia-logo.PNG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Taban Air Flight 6437
You created this, and I created Kolavia Flight 6437, which is the correct title. As you created the first article, I've merged all the info into your article, deleted my article under WP:CSD G6, and redirected your article to the correct title. I've also gone for a nom at WP:ITN/C, just need to sort that nom out now so you get a credit if it is picked. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kolavia is the incorrect title. The flight was marketed and operated as Taban Air, the aircraft was operating by Kolavia not the flight nor passengers! Zaps93 (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you improve the refs by use of the cite web template please? Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can look in to it. Zaps93 (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Porter Airlines destinations
Please do not change from redirect. The list is small. What happens on the Porter Airlines page then becomes duplication of the separate article, and often they don't match. The destinations article is a simple content fork and is too small to stand on its own. &#x0298; alaney2k  •   talk &#x0298; 20:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the WP:AIRLINES rules, over 10 destinations it requires a seperate article. Zaps93 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have proposed it for deletion. &#x0298; alaney2k  •   talk &#x0298; 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that WP:AIRLINES mentions a separate article as an option, "could be separate article" I believe is the wording. It is not a hard and fast rule. Suggest you bring this up on the Porter Airlines talk page first.
 * I agree with retaining the separate destinations article, as is consistent with most other airlines that have > 10 destinations. Though a separate article is not required per project guidelines (it's not even required of an airline like Air France, with hundreds of destinations) it is the practice almost across the board. The destinations list in the main article can simply be removed, with a link to the dedicated article. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jasepl, it's what I have been trying to say. Zaps93 (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Euroatlantic logo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Euroatlantic logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As with any others, it's a logo! Zaps93 (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Biman Bangladesh Airlines
Please DO NOT reintroduce your edits. Your careless work has caused this featured article to go into featured article review, as you removed massive chunks of content, introduced badly formatted references and content, and made other non-FA-compliant edits. The FA was the hard work of a large number of editors, and you basically destroyed the article over the last 2 months. Again, please DO NOT revert to your malformed version. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really care about the FA, please fix the issues in the FAR first, and then make your changes. Don't claim your unilaterally destroying an FA as "fixing clutter", rather it is YOU who messed up the article. Go fix it. --Ragib (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not careless! I thought it through how people would want it! If you don't like it go ahead and discuss at WP:AIRLINES, don't try being superman. Zaps93 (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is your final warning. Next time you revert to your own version, I am going to report you to ANB. Your edits messed up a featured article completely, fix it rather than reverting it. I've explained this in the article talk page. --Ragib (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How?! Exactly! All I did was move history to it's own featured article to improve size and navigation help! Zaps93 (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh Really :D. Last time I checked, Biman Bangladesh Airlines History was not a featured article. Rather you blanked the entire history section from a *featured article*. --Ragib (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, this is just stupid now! I just tried to help clean up and shrink the size of the article. If you can do what I did in a better job be my guest, but all I want is a cleaner Biman page. Zaps93 (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest as well, you REALLY need to read WP:FAC to learn what a featured article is supposed to be, and how that differs from your notion of "cleanup". --Ragib (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok Ok, I have a way to sort this out. Put all the information back and I'll clean up the parts I usually do with other articles, that include a better informed fleet box which complies with the WP:AIRLINES guidelines and the same with the airlines info box (which to make clear, doesn't require 'options' as they are not firm/solid orders, they don't require being mentioned in infobox. Also to add, a CEO and MD are the same roles, so don't need to mention both of them in Infobox either. Zaps93 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's exactly what I was doing. The main objection raised in the FAR was that the article was too short. When the History section is entirely blank, that is a valid observation. You can't simply move all the content from a section in the FA. Also, many sections with very little content is not a FA feature. Unfortunately, the article is now held in limbo in the shortened version, ensuring its demotion from an FA. :( --Ragib (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When and if the article is unprotected again, please do this: revert to the version I last saved, and then gradually do only the housekeeping work that do not violate any FAC (e.g., don't reintroduce the edits which caused the FAR objections). --Ragib (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for how I acted Ragib, but I am just trying to get you to see my point please. If there is a way to improve the article by moving it to a history page, please help me do that in a way that is accepted. As for the other version you re-added, you added back the wrong fleet table and the fleet information in Infoxbox. Again sorry. Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sorry too since I should have provided a clarification to you earlier in your talk page before reverting the article to an older/stable state. My mistake. I was in a hurry to fix the problems mentioned in the FAR, and starting from a stable version seemed to be the best solution. Anyway, here is the plan -- when the article gets unprotected A) revert to the stable version before your edits B) reintroduce the new information you added in the last month (but do it in a way that complies with FAC) C) discuss the edits at the FAR page. How about that? Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And please no hard feelings for any of my words in the above exchange or elsewhere. I was in a hurry to fix the page ... and this is one of the few FAs related to Bangladesh. So, I acted a little too protective. Hope we can fix the article in a manner I suggested above. Have a nice day. --Ragib (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so basically, all the information I had added to improve but with the history added back? No hard feelings, we're both here to help wikipedia, we just got round up I think. Zaps93 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ragib and Zaps93, I was intending to revisit this article in light of the recent changes brought about at Biman and bring the article up to date and am very surprised to see the hard work put into the article to get it to FA is about to go down the drain. We need to act quickly to ensure the quality of the article is brought up to the FA standard again and at the same time tick off the issues raised in the FAR. Zaps93, although I have no doubt you're intentions are to improve the article, it is never a good thing to make drastic changes to FA articles without discussing it first. The first thing I would say that needs to be done is to restore the article to this version and then address the FAR issues before doing anything else. We should continue discussions on the article talk page from now on rather than here. Hope that is agreeable to both. → AA (talk) — 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Porter Airlines edit war
Please see my comment at Talk:Porter_Airlines. This warning applies to you and User:Alaney2k. -- Flyguy649 talk 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Biman Bangladesh Airlines History


The article Biman Bangladesh Airlines History has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Content moved back to main article which was taken to FAR (one of main reasons was due to moving the content to this page).

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. → AA (talk) — 17:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to improve it, please do remove it. After chatting to people about the Biman article I fully understand why there is no need for a separate history article. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

 * Replied. → AA (talk) — 08:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied. → AA (talk) — 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mile High
I'm sure you have the best of intentions but I've reverted the edit again and added some sources for the usage of Fresh! which, if you are a fan, you'll notice is never used in branding and only rarely in speech. If you want to maintain that Fresh Air is the official name/brand, you will have add a source, as being a fan is not acceptable as a source - in fact it counts as original research. I appreciate that a lot of the material on the page is unsourced, but as yet it hasn't been challenged. I intend to find sources for a lot of it soon. Perhaps you could help? Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look in to finding a source, but because it didn't have much online information, that may be difficult. Also on a different note, I saw you commented on one of my YouTube videos on Air Wales. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the series can be a bit inconsistent. Earlier in the series, they flew from Stansted Airport, later on it was London International Airport! Sometimes their call sign is Fresh Air, sometimes Fresh. But I've never seen the branding Fresh Air on logos etc, but a few times in speech. I'm the the middle of watching the DVDs again, on my least favourite episode when they're hunting in Canada. Preferred the first series actually. Which Air Wales vid was it by the way? Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, they didn't have solid information if truth be told. I actually quite liked the Toronto episode, my favourite has got to be Series 2, when Dan and Nigel are retaking their commands and the fight breaks out on the flight. The video was . Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm quite keen on FS myself. Gonna get FSX next week, after 6 years of FS2004. Did you create the Air Wales design yourself? If not where could you get it from? Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer FS2004, and yes, the design was mine. Zaps93 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you prefer 2004? Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * More add-ons, better performance, etc. Zaps93 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space
Hey there Zaps93, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Zaps93. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Viking Airlines Fleet
Hi Zaps93

I saw that the box of the Viking Airlines fleet was changed back to its original colours (the reason I did the orange and blue is because they are the colours of Viking). I read the history page ad it says you didn't like the orange and blue, which is fine, and i do appreciate that. I was just asking though, do you think it would be better with a slightly darker shade of blue instead of the default colours.

I apologise if this has caused any problems. If you disagree with the comment I have sent, then that is okay.

Thanks very much

Also, I hope you like the new Viking Airlines destinations page, which I created yesterday. It is my first wikipedia page I have created which has been a success.

--MKY661 (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not the fact I hated it, I use to be the same, I use to change to represent airline colours, but then guidelines said to be careful of the colours used because of people with colour blindness and use colours easy to read, that's why it is best to use simple colours, e.g. I changed to light blue as it still represents the blue in the companies image, just not the orange/yellow. In other words, be careful of the colour combinations you use. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Varsity Express
Why did you undo my work on the Varsity Express page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.37.131 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it wasn't exactly to standards. Zaps93 (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.37.131 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For starters you changed 'UK' to 'England'. For British airlines we list 'UK', not the actual country, e.g. England or Wales. As for the others, I can't remember them off the top of my head. Zaps93 (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

AnadoluJet destinations
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of AnadoluJet destinations, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.specialfares.net/docs/anadolujet-tr-turkey-ankara-85.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * None of it is copied, I removed all the copied information and just put it to have it was prior to the I.P's edits. Zaps93 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Iraqi Airways logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Iraqi Airways logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Destination Lists
See List of Braathens destinations as a example, which made Featured List standards complete with references, intro and prose. Some people may think that tables may seem more clunky to edit, but a lot more presentable, easier to reference, and is a lot better than a unreferenced list with only one or two references drawing on primary sources. On top of the discussion over at WP:Airlines, Further discussion is also found at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates if you wish to add your opinion. Sb617 (contribs) 13:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Heads up - typo
G'day from Oz. Just a quick note to tell you that I have noticed that you have introduced a typographical error in a few articles recently. You have been typing "aicraft" instead of "aircraft". I have fixed up the Allegiant Air and InterSky articles so far. Cheers, YSSYguy (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Swansea Airport.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Swansea Airport.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jet4you Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Jet4you Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vueling Airlines
Regarding the Vueling Airlines article, you state that the incident Vueling Airlines Flight VY9127, which does not meet the WP:AIRLINES criteria for inclusion of an incident on an airline page, is being discussed. Please could you tell me where it is being discussed as I can't see any reference to it on the Vueling discussion or WP:AIRLINES discussion pages? You also state that the inclusion of engine variants within an aircraft type in a fleet table is 'ongoing' (i.e. being discussed). Could you also kindly direct me to this discussion I can't find it either and have never known a breakdown of engine types to be notable on Wikipedia. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, the engines are still being discussed. I do believe it was never closed, though it has since been archived. It was originally here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines along with incidents. Please do bring them up again at the discussion. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I can't find any discussion relating to engine variants in the current discussions or archived discussions at WP:AIRLINES. The project guidelines state that "other information on the aircraft (for example engines fitted or Boeing customer codes) should not be included". Seems pretty straightforward, and as those guidelines are still in force and I can't find any subsequent discussion I will revert the article back to the correct state. Can you point me towards the discussion relating to Vueling Airlines Flight VY9127? Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, it has been archived so I have no idea how to get to archived discussions I'm afraid. Zaps93 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the Vueling Airlines Flight VY9127 incident? Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both engines and incident. Sorry. Zaps93 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok as I can't find anything for the incident either I have removed it citing the appropritate WP Policy at the article talk page. SempreVolando (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Palmair destinations
Hi. I see you just reverted my removal of what I saw as promotional content - do you really think that a list of currently-available day-trip destinations by an airline is of encyclopedic notability? -- Boing!   said Zebedee  17:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you just reverted. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A-ha yeah. I accidently misread the revert made by you! My apologies. Zaps93 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

LH flights to Erbil/Arbil
Hey Zaps! Actually, LH is launching the flights on April 25 not May 1 according to the press release here (http://presse.lufthansa.com/en/news-releases/view/archive/2010/march/24/article/1662.html). I went ahead and change the dates for the flights. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey! That's better then! I just went with Frankfurt's website as nothing was on the LH destinations page at the time. Cheers! Zaps93 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Listing of Hong Kong in airport articles
Hey. I was wondering why are you listing Hong Kong as if it were a seperate country? Shouldn't Hong Kong be listed under PRC since it is a Special Administrative Region? Just Curious. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, yeah I know, but people and all the rest of the world still likes to recognise it as an idependant country, which to be fair it is. It has it's own rules, government, name, flag. It is different of that to PRC. I think it's only fair we continue to list it as an independant country. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we do that for all of the carriers wince HK is listed under PRC for the other airlines? Thanks! 15:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah pretty much! :) Zaps93 (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong listing for KLM
Hey! I tried to move HK to an independent country but it was moved back under PRC a while ago but I moved it back to being an independent country. Can you watch the KLM destinations page for Hong Kong while an editor insists that HK is part of PRC. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I can. Thanks for letting me know. Zaps93 (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)