User talk:Monopoly31121993

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Monopoly31121993, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for recognizing the benefits of becoming a registered user, creating your user/talk page, and your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you need help, check out useful resources & Getting Help below, ask on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page & add {{Help me}}. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) after your text entry, or by clicking if shown, in order to produce your username & date. Please always fill in edit summary field with a brief description of your article or talk page edits (optional when just adding your communications on talk pages).
You can practice in your personal sandbox (add {{My Sandbox|replace with your user name}} on your user page for future easy access) or your user page. Masssly —Sadat (Masssly)TCM 22:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Sadat (Masssly)TCM 22:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Stellar[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about it! I'll take a look and see what I find! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I found a few things (website on the Wayback Machine works, article from Flight Global, recorded clip from a French language probably Congolese TV news broadcast), so please let everyone know that there's more stuff WhisperToMe (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Great, Cheers! I guess it's looking more and more like they never really existed. I also found that the user who created the Indonesian page has been banned.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png More grease to your elbow working on African related articles. Happy editing! Face-smile.svg →Enock4seth (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Jetstreamer. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sudan Airways, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jetstreamer Talk 19:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jetstreamer. I changed a couple of the other things about the current status of the planes but I think it's correct now. Is there a problem with the source though? I think you ended up using the same one as me (Ch.aviation)?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem at all, but some of the changes you made were not in agreement with it. Everything seems to be ok now.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, Sounds good. I'm working on editing some of the African airport articles at the moment. If you have any desire to help me out it would be great. I think a lot of them are several years out of date. I've finished a few of the major international airports for West Africa if you want to collaborate maybe we could divide up the 20 or so remaining international airports on the continent. No obligation though. Cheers!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Delta ROB-ACC-JFK-ATL[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you are new to editing according to your thread at WT:AIRPORTS (I have replied there as well). Please read WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT (point 7). I removed Atlanta as a destination because the flight makes 2 stops (Accra and JFK) and WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT specifically states avoiding listing direct flights that contain a stop a domestic hub and flights that involves plane changes (which in this case is JFK). Please note that JFK is a Delta hub. Regards! Rzxz1980 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, here is the flight status for DL479 for 9 May 2014 departure http://www.delta.com/flifo/servlet/DeltaFlifo?airline_code=DL&flight_number=479&flight_date=05/09/2014&request=main (if you click on the flight details for each segment, it will tell you the aircraft flown for the route and you will see JFK-ATL segment using 757 aircraft). Also, the source you provided from Delta's online timetables is clearly denoted that ROB-ATL requires a change of equipment. Rzxz1980 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 6 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Delta/SkyWest EAS Info[edit]

Hi, I saw you added some info on the Delta Air Lines page about EAS service. I removed the info for a few reasons: 1) "Delta Connection Airlines" is not an actual airline, just a brand. The brand also has its own article: Delta Connection 2) I may be wrong, but I believe the money goes to the actual carrier, SkyWest Airlines, so that is the article it should be mentioned on. 3) Whichever article the information should go in, I don't think the introduction area of the article is the appropriate place for it. Perhaps a new section in the SkyWest article explaining their EAS service, along with the subsidy info would be appropriate. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. HuffTheWeevil / talk / contribs 14:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair, I can move it to the Delta Connection page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your false vandalism warnings[edit]

Please stop giving me false vandalism warnings. See WP:TEMPLAR. I removed them from MY talk page and now you even revert that on my talk page?? For the last time, stop that.--walkeetalkee 21:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Germany[edit]

Please do not misrepresent what I write. When it happens repeatedly it begins to look like a pattern of behaviour. It would also help me to continue assuming good faith on your part if you would avoid the repeated use of the word "suspect" when replying to me. I have suggested trimming a number of sections and presented perfectly valid arguments. Only on the subject of Nazi Germany, do you seem to regard the suggestions as "suspect", even though the text is longer than comparable texts elsewhere. Whatever your motives, please ensure that you observe Wikipedia's conduct guidelines. --Boson (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleting portions of the Weimar/Third Reich sub-section was the first thing you brought up for editing and no matter how rational my arguments have been and how many times I've agreed with you regarding other sections you refuse to stop pushing the idea that this section is what NEEDS to be re-shaped. I am also assuming good faith and have clearly made an effort to agree with you on many other points. I expect you to be just as considerate and not force me to have to repeat my arguments over and over and over again. Length is not currently an issue for the Weimar/Third Reich sub-section, I've listed many reasons why. And just a reminder, the sub-section is only 300 characters longer now than it was a few days ago. I suggest you work with me a bit more and don't be so inflexible when it comes to finding a common ground solution. If you read what I wrote today on the talk page you will see that I've already suggested ways to reduce the length that don't involve block deletions.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
On the issue of flexibility and cooperation: I think we are progressing very well on the other sections, considering that the issue at the moment is to identify problems, not (necessarily) to provide immediate solutions. In view of the edit warring that has occurred, I think it is best to separate the two phases of identifying problems and editing the text on the basis of consensus, except for obvious improvements. Occasional bold edits may be appropriate, but I think we should stick to WP:BRD. --Boson (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 9 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

In your edit of 15:40, 6 July 2014 of Democratic Republic of the Congo, you introduced

Belgian Congolese forces under the command of Belgian officers notably fought against the Italian colonial army in Ethiopia in [[Asosa]], [[Bortaï]] and [[Saïo]] under Major-general [[Auguste-Eduard Gilliaert]] during the second [[East African Campaign (World War II)|East African Campaign]].<ref name = "WP"/>

but unfortunately that ref name is nowhere defined. Would you kindly take care of this? —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for pointing that out. I've added the link[1].Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

History sections in Japanese station articles[edit]

Hi. In a recent edit to the Tokyo Skytree Station article here you mentioned in your edit summary that you thought it was "correct" formatting to move the "History" section to the top of the article. I'm curious as to what this is based on. Apart from the fact that it makes the formatting messy with the images having to be placed on the left-hand side disrupting subsequent sub-sections (not much fun on a small screen), my thinking is that people wishing to view the articles are more likely to want to read about the current state of the station before delving into the history details. I know that's generally how I read articles when I'm looking at them. The Japanese station articles I've seen and worked on generally seem to follow that logical order, so unless there is some compelling reason to change it, I personally think it would be best to continue with this arrangement. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your views on it too. And thanks for adding some historical images to the articles in the process. --DAJF (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, DAJF. I got that understanding from the other articles I had read and it seems to be the case to include the history section at the top from the majority of the featured articles. Also on the Wiki project page it says that the order should be as follows (although it doesn't give a template):

"The lead paragraph shall include the name of the station as it appears on the system map, and not a short-hand name, but those can and should be mentioned later. It shall also mention the system, the city or area, and the line the station lies on, and, if notable, the location on that line.

The next information should be the area served by the station, and major establishments and attractions near it. A list of lesser but still notable places should be supplied later. The date service began should probably be here. Notable historic events specific to that rail station should go in the next paragraph.

A table should exist, displaying the line(s) and the next stations on that line, with a link to the appropriate line."

Since this doesn't say anything about the actual services at the station that has to come later but I see your point about the images being shown on the left hand side of a small screen. I guess that would be something to bring up on the talk page because maybe it's a common problem and should be included in the instructions but since everyone has a different type of screen it doesn't seem like a problem with an easy solution. I hope that helps.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up that information, which was news to me. I'm still not convinced that that is the most logical order in which to arrange the sections, and as I mentioned above, I'm not happy with the way the layout of the images gets disrupted, but I'll leave the Tokyo Skytree Station article for now in case any other editors wish to comment or change the layout. Thanks for taking the time to reply. --DAJF (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Your reverts[edit]

You have some explaining to do. See Talk:Operation_Protective_Edge#Operation_Brother.27s_Keeper. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I got back to you. I see what you're saying about the 500 figure. I support changing that in the text. It was the 10 dead figure from Maan that I didn't see anywhere else so I didn't think it should be in the introduction. Feel free to made that change if you want to.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ghana[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Article. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.Thesunshinesate (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding ? Removing 800px, mislabeled images posted by a blocked account? You call that vandalism? Please go read my comments on the Ghana Talk page about the use of images before you say anything more.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Commuter rail statistics[edit]

In this edit to commuter rail in North America ([2]), you changed the passenger numbers for Montreal's system from 73,900 to 7,600. I'm not sure if this was a typo or something, but that's an enormous difference. Was this on purpose? Conifer (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Hi Conifer, thanks for catching that. Yes it looks like that was a mistake. I double checked the source that's referenced there and it now has the correct stat for commuter rail. Thanks again!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Benina International Airport[edit]

Hi there, Monopoly31121993! Regarding this, I've checked the Syphax Airlines official website and Benghazi is not included as a current destination. I think it's best to wipe out the airline from the destinations table. Cheers.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've done that now. The strange thing is that their booking system still allows you to select it as a destination even though their route map doesn't show it. I was also hoping maybe someone had some better knowledge about that airline because it seems like just about every city in Libya has them listed as a carrier... Any help you can give is greatly appreciated! Cheers!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Didn't know that. If someone re-adds,{{cn}} tags are in order.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Pittston, Pennsylvania[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you made some edits to the Pittston, Pennsylvania article. When you made this edit you added a source which you retrieved 5 years ago, and the source did not support what you wrote. Adding reliable sources is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Please take a moment to actually verify your sources, and not just cut and paste them from other articles. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I went back and fixed it. Please feel free to add some references to the article, it looks like there's a lot of work to do.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Numbers of combatants killed[edit]

I am not assuming anything. WP policy is clear on this issue. Read WP:CALC. The PCHR stated the overall number of deaths and how many of those are civilians. Same goes for the IDF, which has stated the overall number of deaths and how many of those are militants. I am sticking to what the sources say. Please open up a discussion on the main talk page of the article for other editors to join in before starting an edit war. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

EkoGraf , When you have 3 categories and a source provides you with data for only one of them and you, as an editor, decide to guess the values of the other two categories (in this case deciding that they are all civilian deaths (IDF figures) and combatants (Gaza Government figures)) you are introducing new information into Wikipedia and that's not ok.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
If you are referring to unidentified killed when saying there is a 3rd category, than I would like to point out that the PCHR and the IDF have not stated at any time that they themselves have that category (unidentified). They have consistently referred to civilian or combatant dead, never mentioning any unidentified. EkoGraf (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Lets keep your arguments about this where they belong, on the talk page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Name of the section on 2014_Israeli_raids_on_UNRWA_schools[edit]

Could you change back the name of the section while the RfC is going on? Otherwise people will not know what section is being talked about. If people want to change the name of the section, they can indicate it in the comments. Kingsindian (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving the page[edit]

Hi. I have reverted your move for now. Such controversial pages should not be moved without a wider discussion. You should open a move request. I have also left a comment on the talk page. Kingsindian (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your recent reversion in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

Hey! I noticed that you undid my edition. There, I had omitted an unreferenced part of a sentence. You've written "just look at the Casualties section under Israeli, there's a sourced sentence there" in your edition summary, as it seems. Is it really a rational reason for undoing an edition? Or It would be better if you had simply added the mentioned reference to the sentence, as WarKosign did?

Would you please either place a [citation needed] tag after the text that you would like a source for and not just delete text without fact checking it, or read parts of the page where you might find those sources. In this case you deleted text that was clearly cited in the text. Remember, the introduction is a summary of the text of the article.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You are right mentioning the [citation needed] tag, but such an issue must be handled more carefully. We'd better respect the policies! every challenging material must be verified. This fact is right even for materials which do exist in the lead part. Mhhossein (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:lede so that you can understand what the lede is about. It's a summary of facts already cited in the article. Unfortunately the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is not a good example of a well written lede but that page will help you understand why you don't need to cite something in the lede if it has already been sourced on the same page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion but I have read it before. As I told you, we should respect the policies! even that WP:lead verifies my opinion:

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.

Wasn't that a challengeable material? Mhhossein (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It's only "challengeable" if it's not obviously true. You deleted material without even doing a basic check on the page from which you deleted it. Don't do that.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You are jumping into conclusion using a wrong definition of "challengeable". I'm just telling you the wikipedia policies which we all should respect. Mhhossein (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Salem Depot[edit]

Hey, unless you have serious objections, I'm going to merge Salem Depot back into Salem (MBTA station). It's generally best, barring otherwise compelling reasons, to keep all the history of railroad stations in one area in one article*. Otherwise, a reader would have to skip back and forth between articles to get the complete history of the numerous stations that have served a half-mile area of Salem. Take a look at Lynn (MBTA station), Framingham Railroad Station, and Holyoke Railroad Station for what I've done with integrated histories.

*The only really compelling case I've found is Union Station (Providence) and Providence Station where a) the buildings have independent histories that can each fill a lengthy article and b) the stations are not separated by time and a small section of rail line, but a complete relocation of the entire right-of-way across a substantial section of downtown Providence. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose you merging these in this case. The reason is it's a different building (which has certain architectural significance), it was located at a different location and it's from a completely different time period than the current station. In fact, it's probably one of the oldest stations in the U.S. There are lots of examples of other places that have separate pages for each of the previous stations (e.g. Central Station, Los Angeles, La Grande Station, River Station (Los Angeles), Union Station (Los Angeles)), even if the location was just next door to the station that replaced it they have separate pages because the buildings were architecturally unique and had unique historical significance. I would even consider doing something similar for the Lowell Boston and Maine R.R. Railroad Depot even though it's not currently done that way. I hope this makes sense. Cheers,Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Going off of what Pi said, we have multiple articles down here on Cape Cod where the station was demolished, and then rebuilt. One such station which looks like it will be rebuilt is the one in Bourne, which transcends two different time periods. What Pi is saying is that there isn't a huge amount of information available to keep the one separate as well. Barring a sudden addition of large amounts of text that is relevant to the original station, I would support a merge as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Just because an article is a stub does not mean that's a reason for merging it. We're talking about historic stations, in different locations than the later stations and which have architectural importance. I think that's meets the notability criteria and therefore it should be a separate page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Just because it could meet the notability criteria (and it only barely does if at all) doesn't mean there's any reason for it to be separate. You're scattering information over separate pages rather than putting it in one place; the entire article is currently two lines and two citations (one of which I doubt you have a copy of) copied right from the other article. (n.b.: before uploading LOC images to Commons, check first to see if someone else has already uploaded higher-resolution versions) The significance of the 1847 station is significantly greater as one step in the 1836-1847-1959-1987-2014 station progression (as a single article) than is it independently (in the definitive The Railroad Station: An Architectural History it gets a one-line writeup that gives it no more status than any other station of the time.)
The Los Angeles stations are a poor example; they were substantially separate buildings from different railroads, each with a rich history that's not merely a part of a succession of similar stations. The Salem stations were the same railroad, serving the exact same purpose, and separated by about three blocks. The article about the current MBTA station would make no sense without the context of previous stations, so why move part of that information to a separate article for absolutely no gain? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Fletcher is the other substantial author of the existing article; they don't edit frequently so I've emailed them to notify them of the discussion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
A completely different station in a separate location is clear evidence that it's not the same thing. And you're incorrect, it's not even the same railroad (MBTA vs. Boston and Maine). The history section should include links to any previous stations under further reading links, I've already added that.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Eastern RR to B&M to B&M under MBTA contract to MBTA with other operators has been a smooth transition; never were there different companies building competing stations. Exact same Eastern Route service with a different logo painted on the side of the train. The construction of new stations does not correlate with the change of operators. The article is not about the architecture of the specific building; it is about the Salem railroad station (which has been several different boxes serving exactly the same purpose).
I understand your desire to focus on the 1847 station - it's possibly the coolest-looking station I've ever seen - but I think it is still best discussed in the context of the other railroad station buildings that have served downtown Salem. Otherwise, a reader has to jump from article to article to understand the history of service to Salem. None of these stations exist in a vacuum; separating them into different articles either means ignoring historical context or repeating a whole lot of information. Neither the 1838 station nor the 1959 station have remotely enough to write an article about, much less pass notability. (The former has no known photographs; the latter is an ugly beige box and a couple rusted-out staircases.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd favor merging unless someone thinks there's a lot more unique content to be added for the Depot. I basically see this topic as several incarnations of the main passenger rail station in Salem, even if they weren't always at the same location. That can be covered in one article. Fletcher (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged it, since it is clear that there is consensus to merge the articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sure... less than 24 hours, no requests for additional comments from anyone but the two regular editors of the page into which you merged the article. That's not how consensus gets reached.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Get off your high horse; none of this would have happened if you'd bothered to ask anyone else before deciding to split the article. Local preference has long been to consolidate railroad history where possible instead of splitting it up. Meanwhile, Pittsfield is an absolute mess with three articles instead of one. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Then go ahead and revert me, set up a merge discussion, and wait six months for more interested editors than us four to become involved. The reason I did that is because it's not going to draw in a huge amount of people, and the article itself isn't big enough to support on its own, as it's incredibly short for something that you're planning on turning into its own article. If you can find some more material, as Fletcher mentioned above, then feel free to make a good case to keep it separate, as there are three editors who do not think that it is worth having as a separate article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nebraska Zephyr may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • photos davidwilson1949 5469629261 , David Wilson Nebraska Zephyr, 1968.jpg|Nebraska Zephyr, 1968]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stavanger Airport, Sola may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |2=Destinations map}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Debate over Holocaust picture in the lead[edit]

Hi, I had a debate on the Holocaust talk page about the image used in the lead. The image currently used shows Jews at a railway station. In my opinion, this photo does not capture the nature of the Holocaust. I proposed a photo depicting mass murder, but a number of editors disagreed with this and re-instated the railway station photo. I just wanted to know your opinion on this issue.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

OnBeyondZebrax, thanks for contacting me. I'll post my comments if I have any on the talk page for the page but as far as I can tell the picture is not of Jews at a railway station but of Auschwitz concentration camp and Nazi officers are "selecting" women and children to be sent to their deaths in the gas chambers. There also seem to be quite a few pictures further down the page of mass murder.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Air Baltic to GOT[edit]

Hello!

I saw your edit at GOT. Air Baltic will not end their route to GOT according to the winter schedule. AminC99 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi AminC99! Thanks for this. I notice that a lot of the pages for Airports in Europe have not been updated recently and have lots of errors. I've just been checking the flights given by Norwegian but there's a lot more to do if you can help. Cheers!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi again! I appriciate the work you have done and glad to see the expansion of the European airports. I always try to improve info on all airports and I'm glad to see you doing it as well :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AminC99 (talkcontribs) 21:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Apple Vacations[edit]

You prodded the article, but did not give a rationale. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, kelapstick, Thanks for this. I wrote on the talk page that it looks like the entire article was written by one editor whose only contribution to Wikipedia was to create that page and then to make a whole lot of 1 character spelling corrections on other pages. To me it seems highly likely that this person was a paid editor and given the "awards" section of the article it seems likely. What would you suggest I do now?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Just put your rationale beside where it says |concern=, if there is no rationale the prod tag will be removed as being proposed without rationale. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Burkinabé uprising[edit]

Good on the edits. only thing is you mentioned riots here then change d other stuff like the def min. its sourced in th article

Also the violence today are riots..Lihaas (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Just because one source you have put on this page calls them riots doesn't mean they are. These are people protesting for their freedom and you're basically taking the racist view that these are a bunch of savages who just start "rioting". That's racist and since you don't have sources to back it up you certainly shouldn't be painting the article with that stuff. Please remove it.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea ho I am being racist by asserting fact. But you can either ask WP:3O or other editors involved on the page.
At any rate, there actions are not wrong IMO. (don't know why id say that, but I just did ;))Lihaas (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Station, Philadelphia[edit]

I'm trying to sort out the confusion regarding the name of this station. There was a 24th Street Station about 600 feet north of the B & O Station, but that was for trolleys. I've been able to find no sources or maps that identify the B & O Station as "24th Street Station." Do you have any evidence for this? == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

BoringHistoryGuy, Good catch! I think you have a point here. On this page [3] a reported transcription of a timetable from the 1930s show the name as "Chestnut Street Station" and this page about the architect of the station [4] also uses that name. I'll add this but I'm not sure if we should just change the name of the whole page now that we know this. If you think that the page should be renamed feel free to do that. I would support that idea but you should also mention this on the talk page. Thanks again!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
You should be aware of the discussion on the Wiki Commons talk page: Category:24th Street Station (Philadelphia)
That still doesn't answer the 24th Street Station question, and whether it is fact or fantasy. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Mainline/Express Combo Issue[edit]

I reverted your edits to ATL and PHL until the issue is further discussed on the WP:AIRPORTS talk page. HuffTheWeevil / talk / contribs 05:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Jersey City, New Jersey[edit]

Hi. Thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Jersey City, New Jersey, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept uncited material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, material obtained through personal knowledge, or which constitutes the an analysis or interpretation by the editor that is not found in cited sources. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Nightscream, I will add the references.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It is much appreciated. I appreciate all the work you're doing to shore up the NJ-related articles. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nightscream! No problem.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture[edit]

HI , I noticed that you removed properly sourced info in this edit, with the editsummary "deadlink removed". This is an inappropriate edit summary: It was more than removing a dead link, there was no dead link, and even IF THERE HAD BEEN a dead link , WP:DEADLINK advises NOT to remove source and sentence.

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Wuerzele, it was a deadlink.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I dont think you read my message properly. You didnt remove a link you removed SOURCED INFO . WP:DEADLINK advises to fix teh link, NOT to remove source and sentence. Thank you.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Wuerzele, sorry if I made a mistake then but as I remember it that link didn't work. Anyway, I can see now that it had been fixed so thanks for add that information. Cheers!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your dedication and contributions to the article Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture - Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mic, Oral and VOX. 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) 09:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


Join WikiProject Microsoft![edit]

Why don't you join WikiProject Microsoft?
Wikiproject Microsoft Banner.png

It seems that you have been editing Microsoft-related articles, so why don't you consider joining WikiProject Microsoft, not to be confused with WikiProject Microsoft Windows. WikiProject Microsoft is a group of editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microsoft, its technologies, Web-based sites and applications, its important people, and share interests regarding Microsoft. This WikiProject is in the process of being revived and is welcoming any and all editors who are willing to help out with the process. Add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft/Participants and/or add the userbox {{User WikiProject Microsoft}}. Thanks! STJMLCC (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture
added links pointing to Orally and Scott Miller
Gummo Marx
added a link pointing to Drafted
James Pavitt
added a link pointing to Mic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)