Summary
Welcome edit
Welcome! AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. You recently reverted this edit regarding flag icons in destination tables. This isn't vandalism, as per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT (bullet 13), flags are not included in destination tables. Regards. 107.77.219.35 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Working in and around the FAA teaches one thing ... pick your battles from those that matter. I would mentor any editor to update quality facts first and flags or non-facts way down the road. Yes, I stated flags do inform and add direct benefit to small airport data pages which have few departure destinations, but, I will lean toward good FAA data for runways, passenger ops, and based aircraft. Thanks, airports build cities, once a city builds an airport. AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Andrewgprout. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I can only assume your disregarding of both WP:AIRPORTS and WP:MOSFLAGS is because you are vandalising the page please stop this. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- and
- MOS:INFOBOXFLAG which you quote in your latest edit summary is not the appropriate guidance as you are not adding the flags to the infobox on this page - even if you were you would be ignoring the following advice. "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes,, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." Which is even stronger advice than at WP:MOSFLAGS which does apply "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams" Airline flights do not qualify here as they do not represent countries. Both these sources are Wikipedia wide consensus and you really need a very very very persuasive argument to ignore such advice. WP:AIRPORTS represents a local consensus but is well established and rarely challenged advice. Note 13 of the content section says "Do not include flags for airlines or the actual destination." again you will need a very good reason to ignore this advice. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Flags in Rhinelander-Oneida County Airport Comment edit
Hello, there I've been watching the activity on the Rhinelander-Oneida County Airport article. I just wanted to take a few minutes to explain my perspective on the matter; sorry in advance I didn't have much time to develop this message so it may sound a little cheesy.
According to what I've read so far none of the guidelines people are citing when they revert your edits is actually obsolete meaning it's recommended that you follow them but you are totally allowed to disregard them if you chose to. That one from WikiProject airport with the step by step article section by section clearly stated that the user has the complete choice to follow it how they want. I don't consider you a vandal like some of the users, even thought I would stop reverting the edits of the people who are reverting your edits so you don't get into trouble for edit warring.
My opinion on Rhinelander is to leave flags out entirely. I don't consider this service notable enough to be highlighted by a flag. If it were United or American doing the flight, or it was a good few hour flight away then yes I probably would consider the service notable, but a Delta flight going to a Delta hub that is only an hour away doesn't seem notable to me.
Once again sorry about undeveloped nature of this message, have a nice day/night, --KDTW Flyer (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Blocks are not only applied to just vandalism. There are a range of other criteria - note Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Blocks. If there is an agreed Manual of Style, then editors are expected to follow that style OR get the Manual of Style changed - Wikipedia pages are generated by a consensus of editors and the Manual of Styles are no exception. If editors get reported for not following the MoS, then that is obvious disruptive editing (as someone else will have to tidy it up). In such cases one would expect other users to place {{uw-disruptive1}}, {{uw-disruptive2}}, {{uw-disruptive3}}, {{uw-disruptive4}} in turn before reporting as disruptive, then on the fifth occasion a block could be imposed and {{Uw-disruptblock}} displayed. See also Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
G'day, your recent edit to Glasgow Airport (Montana) has created a reference error; go to the References section to see it. It would be good if you deal with that, under the "you f*** it up, you fix it" principle. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Never mind - a Bot took care of it. YSSYguy (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Jkd4855. You need to include the name of at least one article where you believe edit warring has occurred. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Jkd4855. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Jkd4855. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
| | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add New Members
Closed Discussions
On The Main Page
Did you know...
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
