User talk:Zaps93/archive02

Brussels Airlines[edit]

Hi, I noticed that your edit was made out of good faith. I would disagree with your edit, since it is not a Star Alliance member YET. By not mentioning that it is a future member, people would think that Brussels Airlines is already a full member. This will only lead to confusion. I believe that the information 'future member' should remain there even though it will join Star Alliance before 2010 for clarity reasons. Therefore I will revert your edit. If you disagree with me, feel free to leave a note on my discussion page, or to contact an admin if necessary. --Einsteinbud (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry what edit? please link. Zaps93 (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Surinam Airways.PNG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Surinam Airways.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR - British Airways Destinations[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British Airways Destinations. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SempreVolando (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I know, but I am only trying to keep history of British Airways destinations, but yet the other user keeps reverting my edits thinking he owns it, you can see from his comments he has written during his reverts. I told him to take it to discussion page but he just brings in a race issue which is childish as I have shown no racism? Shall I report him for it as he did start it? Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly feel very strongly about the issue, but the best option is to start a discussion on the article talk page, so that the other user and indeed any other editors with an interest can add their opinion and hopefully consensus can be reached. Reverting backwards and forwards doesn't really help anyone. SempreVolando (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information Zaps you may be interested in a new discussion on the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. Just note that rather than keep reverting either when challenged or when challenging an edit it is best to take it to the talk page rather than continue. It is sometimes usefull to ask at the relevant project for help and opinions as well. Sorry to go on but try not to use capital letters in edit summaries as it is looked on as shouting and is considered rude by other editors. Not sure what the unprovoked racism bit was about I will have a look at that and probably leave the other editor a warning about their behaviour. MilborneOne (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MilborneOne, thanks for the information I will certainly do that in the future! And yes, the racism was really unprovoked, if you could look into it, please do so. Thank You, Zaps93 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive[edit]

Zaps I have created a link at the top of this page, if you click on it you can copy old discussions in to it. They are lots of automatic and fancy ways of archiving but this is the simplest. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

flydubai[edit]

Please dont get provoked by other users, remember you can get into trouble for breaking the three-revert rule. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AF 447[edit]

Zaps, AF 447 is not gone from the schedule, just look at AF website. They will probably change its number sooner or later, but as of now, it is still scheduled (you were probably tricked by the fact that AF 443 operates every day, and AF 447 just 2 days in a week). --Raistlin (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-ha, that's probably what happened, thanks for clearing. Zaps93 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:AF-KLM.PNG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:AF-KLM.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus[edit]

No one's contesting that Cyprus are a member of the EU. Of course they are. But the destination lists are based on geography, not on a country's political inclinations or group memberships. So, Cyprus can join the EU, but it will physically remain in Asia, right? Similarly, France may choose to join the East Asian LaLa Union - will that make France an Asian country? Jasepl (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Asia Jasepl (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, I know we've not gotten off to a good start, but as you said, if its based on Geography then yer, no real answer but more evidence points at Europe. I've been doing research for A-level and it shows more at Europe, not Asia i'm afraid. Zaps93 (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-Level research in 2009 is one thing, especially since Cyprus is already a member of the EU. Before that happened, Cyprus and Europe were never mentioned in the same breath - it's always been physically in Asia. See this page < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Asia > - notice there's nothing next to Cyprus that says it's European, or even partly in Europe (unlike Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey etc, all of which have a little blurb explaing their location). Cyprus is completely located in Asia, and happens to be a member of the EU. Jasepl (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jet4you[edit]

Please do not change our fleet details again. I changed them again this morning. I am a jet4you pilot out here in Morocco. Thanks--Boeing pilot (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a better supported reference then? The current reference states 4x Boeing 737-400s and 2x Boeing 737-800s, so you saying that's not right? Zaps93 (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screw that, I had old reference up still, just looked at new one! Ok, note taken. Zaps93 (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Airlines[edit]

You have reverted my picture caption edits for Ethiopian Airlines, where I removed the constant use of "Ethiopian Airlines" in front of every picture and the naming of invisible airports. As an editor since 2002 with 24,000 edits I really do know what I'm doing and work extensively, as you do, on airliner articles. I work mainly on adding pictures from my own camera.

I wonder if you realise how odd it looks to name the airport when no trace of the airport is seen. Should the reader want to know the airport then this is found easily by a click on the picture. Of course, where the airport is seen, it should be named. Other airline articles support my stance.

Similarly the repetition of the airlines name in front of every picture looks odd because the reader already knows the subject of the article and, again, the other airline articles largely support me. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varna Airport[edit]

Hi, it's a bit silly to be edit-warring about the name of the airport on Bulgaria Air. I think the article and references to it should be called Varna Airport because that's what it calls itself on its own website. Compare the no. of Googlehits for site:www.varna-airport.bg "Varna International Airport" and site:www.varna-airport.bg "Varna Airport". If you have a reference that the official name includes "International", I'll accept your version. Preslav (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?[edit]

Can you please identify where you are getting your logic/justification/whatever from... Not that there are any hard and fast rules, but editors should adhere to existing guidelines. If you want them changed, or think they something should be done differently, then by all means discuss it. But please don't go assume that just because every little thing is not clearly spelled out, that you won't face resistance (from me and from other editors) when you go about trying to establish your own standard, of your own volition. This is the current 'guideline' for the destination lists: [[1]] - and it applies equally to current as well as terminated destinations. There is no exception or different set of norms for one or the other anywhere. Also, see here for further clarification of the above: [[2]] As for the smaller destination lists, I'm not sure where you're getting the "if more than five then it's a table" and "flags are okay in tables". I don't recall ever seeing any consensus on either of those (just the opposite for flags). So, like I already said before, if you know where these matters were discussed and a consensus reached, then please point to it. I'm sorry, but if you think that just because you think you put a lot of effort into something that will automatically give you free license to do what you feel like, well, then there's little I can say. Jasepl (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]