Jump to content

User talk:Vegaswikian: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 78.147.188.151 - "→‎London City Airport: new section"
Line 66: Line 66:
You have put a lock on London City Airport.
You have put a lock on London City Airport.


I want to show there is a BIAS from Wiki editors. For instance if you look at the "Stanstead airport" wiki page. There has been for someone time a Section called "Opposition". Yet a similar section has not been allowed for London City Airport?
I want to show there is a BIAS from Wiki editors. For instance if you look at the "Stanstead airport" wiki page. There is a Section called "Opposition". Yet a similar section has not been allowed for London City Airport?
Clearly there is "bias" on the between editors?
Clearly there is "bias" on the between editors?


For "London City Airport" - there is a Opposition Group called "Fight the Flights" who oppose the airport's expansion. So people who know nothing about the subject matter then remove it.


For "London City Airport" - there is a Opposition Group called "Fight the Flights" who oppose the airport's expansion.
It would be nice if there is a link to the "Fight the Flights" web page (at the moment this is only a Blog). If they decide to get a .com it would help....


It would be nice if there is a link to the "Fight the Flights" web page (at the moment this is only a Blog).
But I note for "Stanstead Airport" there is a link to the Stop Standstead Expansion.


So Wiki editors have to apply the "same" standard?
But I noted for Stanstead there is a link to the Stop Standstead Expansion.


Please can you look into the matter.
Please can you look into the matter.


I have heard the Airport has employed a PR company. So I don't know if the people who don't want a section called "Opposition" are associated with the PR company.
I have heard the Airport has employed a PR company. So I don't know if the people who don't want a section called "Opposition" are associated with the PR company?


Go investigate.
Go investigate.

Revision as of 00:00, 17 August 2008

Archive

Archives


1 2 3 4 5

Welcome!

Hello, Vegaswikian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:20, 17 March 2005 (UTC-5)

Johnsville Naval Air Development Center

Thanks for deleting this article. You screwed up the NAWC article by doing this. I wish I could make carte blanche decisions like that. :\ --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: your comment - I wish I knew how this happened, because the NAWC wikilinks were not corrected. I edited that page, and it had good content. You say you deleted it because it lacked content, but where is all the history? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 20:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diaoyu Islands protection movement activists

Hi VW, Just wanted to let you know that I took care of that odd, unattached comment on "Diaoyu Islands protection movement activists" that you closed out. The moment I spotted that I knew right where it went... because it was clearly a reply (from the category's creator) to the CFD that I had opened for Category:Diaoyu Islands protection movement activists on August 7. Somehow or other, he left it on the wrong day's CFDs, instead of following the link in the CFD notification that I left on his talk page. Oh well, I tried! :) Anyway, I've moved the comment into that CFD, and simply removed the remaining traces of your closing template. Cgingold (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Revisit

When you get a chance, would you stop by this cfd for a message I left for you in that thread? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing and able to participate is discussing some of the "larger issues" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy criterion #6 challenge

There's been the first challenge that I'm aware of to the use of the speedy criterion #6 that you proposed and helped along ("Georgia" to "Georgia (country)", etc.) How exciting! ... See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_11#Georgia-related_categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCC Research Improvement

Updated talk page with COI, NPOV, and additional sourcing prominently featured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BCC_Research Stuartfost (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Rollback is only supposed to be used when an edit is obviously vandalism, see: Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When not to use Rollback. swaq 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what that says is unworthy change to an article (usually vandalism). Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "Rollback must only be used to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism. This includes edits that are obscenities, gibberish, extremely poorly worded content, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other useless remarks that have nothing to do with the subject." I hardly think following the Wikipedia:Red link guidelines qualifies. swaq 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so exactly what do you want me to do. Are you saying I should have used undo instead? No matter what way you go here, if you were to look at the article, all of the airlines are linked so undoing a random link should be considered vandalism. I will also note that your edits were also noticed by other editors and I happened to get there first. And as a final point, at least one of those articles has been rewritten and sourced to make it notable. So it is no longer a red link. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think using undo would have been more appropriate. I could understand interpreting it as vandalism if I hadn't left an edit summary, but in my summary I stated they were deleted articles, so it wasn't like I picked random links to remove. I did notice that one of the articles was recreated. I'm not against my edits being reverted, but it would have been nice to have good faith assumed. swaq 20:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airline codes-A‎

i noticed those two articles being delinked too. I added them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/AFD Record, and I wonder if they should be undeleted. Yet another reason for getting some notability guidelines written out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London City Airport

You have put a lock on London City Airport.

I want to show there is a BIAS from Wiki editors. For instance if you look at the "Stanstead airport" wiki page. There is a Section called "Opposition". Yet a similar section has not been allowed for London City Airport?

Clearly there is "bias" on the between editors?

For "London City Airport" - there is a Opposition Group called "Fight the Flights" who oppose the airport's expansion. So people who know nothing about the subject matter then remove it.

It would be nice if there is a link to the "Fight the Flights" web page (at the moment this is only a Blog). If they decide to get a .com it would help....

But I note for "Stanstead Airport" there is a link to the Stop Standstead Expansion.

So Wiki editors have to apply the "same" standard?

Please can you look into the matter.

I have heard the Airport has employed a PR company. So I don't know if the people who don't want a section called "Opposition" are associated with the PR company?

Go investigate.

I don't plan on further edits on London City Airport, but the page will be poorer for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.188.151 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]