User talk:Andrewgprout

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

^{[non-primary source needed]}

Taiwan

Wikipedia_talk:Taiwan-related_topics_notice_board#When_is_using_Taiwan_.2F_ROC_.2F_Chinese_Taipei_appropriate

you reverted my edit to SFO Airport

You said "Wikipedia is not a travel guide". I know that, but it is a fact that US Airways still operates flight from San Francisco to Philadelphia (only one more).

John Key

Hi Andrewgprout, I have reversed your edit to the John Key article regarding his role in negotiating the development of the Australian Skilled Visa 189. I can't see how this has nothing to do with him. That statement was backed up by a biography on the subject matter written by John Roughan. I also didn't see why you had to reverse book references in the reference list. Happy to discuss this issue with you on your talk page. Thanks. Andykatib 22:22, December 28, 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Sourced material removal

Hi Andrew, this is I believe the third occasion of incidents like this with you. Firstly, it began at the Lanzarote Airport page that was followed by Cork, this resulted in temporary war-editing on your behalf removing sourced material - I note this ceased. Now we arrive here again, with the same issue. If you have an issue with sourced material information being provided, which is cross-checkable you need to bring this to a forum to be discussed with moderators. I'm flagging this to you directly before I move next to report these edits. They are not constructive, for example you bulk removed edits on the Dublin and Cork pages which I can show to moderators which net-resulted in factual information removal. EireAviation (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EireAviation: Further to this, you placed synthesis tag for the MCO-MAN service, check the link. This interference with sourced material needs to stop. EireAviation (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EireAviation: The synthesis tag is a serious attempt at getting you to understand what you are getting wrong. Wikipedia can be a very counterintuitive place so you should listen to what is being suggested to you and not just assume ill will. You are baseing many of your edits on dummy searches against an airline's search engine, this practice is fraught with issues particularly when trying to derive start and stop dates for a service. Please remember Wikipedia is not a directory it is an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedia deal with tertiary information. The stop and start dates of an airline service are at best primary detail and are very questionable here. However assuming an argument can be made for such inclusion the consensus advice at WP:AIRPORTS is that such dates must be referenced, and references ideally should be WP:SECONDARY. There has also been an established consensus that temporary content - like the recent covid induced cancellations and reinstatements are not particularly encyclopaedic and as a rule do not really warrent inclusion. As a rule of thumb I usually think it is not important to add anything to Wikipedia that it would be likely I would have to reverse in six months time, other people will do things slightly differently but that is my level of comfort. Hope that helps. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back here again, this really is pathetic, an orchestrated to effort by you to discredit edits. You continue to object to verified material being posted, and threaten me (noted) with blocking as if you are some moderator. You have a track record that I have now compiled of removing material, referring to one edit as says who? a really lazy attitude when you couldn’t be bothered to even check the reference, clearly. All the services are verifiable, you like to claim Wikipedia isn't a news source, may I suggest you get busy editing all other airport articles then as this is the correct procedure. Operational verifiable routes are listed with reference, those that aren't verifiable are removed. It's really not that hard to understand. EireAviation (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recent personal favorite of mine was where an entire airline was removed in retaliation, which I doubt any reasonable "guidelines" on Wikipedia could ever explain or justify. Evidently no one is immune from guidelines or lack thereof, not even those who preach them, while in addition WP:AIRPORTS itself states, in bold, "Remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article." I wrote something similar about "editing every airport article" under a supposed "logic"; it was later removed with an "explanation" consisting of a bemusing hodgepodge of words that ultimately say nothing (not that it was going to remain on its own for other, unrelated reasons). On a brighter note, I consider this to be relevant in a way that does not require restating or paraphrasing. There, that's my potentially off-color talk page edit for the year, and always hopefully the last. ChainChomp2 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. EireAviation (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only ONE reference to support your revert (Changi Airport)

Please do not revert, unless you can provide ANOTHER reliable references (not just ONE) to your revert. In the website of BPS.go.id (BRS, Berita Resmi Statistik page), it is clear that since Q2 2020, until NOW, there is no international flight at BPN. International flight was served by SilkAir, and in 2020 it was terminated until now (Read more: https://m.bisnis.com/amp/read/20200305/408/1209676/singapura-tutup-satu-satunya-penerbangan-internasional-balikpapan-penumpang-turun).

PLEASE return to the reliable revision, or I will revert and contact another editor.--140.213.204.237 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i don't understand whT you are saying. one refernce is all it takes. The detail is referenced. just leave it. Wikipedia is not a directory it is not thae place for such pedantic detail. Also your messsage comes across as a threat that is not a good thing.Andrewgprout (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Sorry i don't understand whT you are saying.' Reply (R): Just understand what you are reverting.

'one refernce is all it takes.' R: Is that a NEW Wikipedia policy? One questionable reference of flight that never exist, nobody launch it and no online news about it at all, not even Scoot fleet detected on online radar, not even any of its (ghost) passenger number recorded on government statistic (BPS.go.id) since Q2 2020 until now.

These are some policy of Wikipedia, I don't make them by myself:

Such sources (Questionable Source-your only one reference) include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Read more: WP:QS

'The detail is referenced.' R: Where.. is the detail? No detail at all. It's just a plan of Scoot in 2018 ('planned changes' in your only one reference) and the name of the city, with NO detail.. at all.

'Wikipedia is not a directory it is not thae place for such pedantic detail.' R: Is that a brand new Wikipedia policy? Or maybe you are 'trying' to make your own policy on Wikipedia. Pedantic? Well, removing flight (wait, it's just a plan according to your source) that never exist is NOT pedantic. Or maybe you want to insert all airline plan in the Airport article, which is not allowed.

'Also your messsage comes across as a threat that is not a good thing.' R: It is NOT a threat, your revert is the threat to all Changi Airport Wikipedia reader, they can't book the flight (that never exist). --140.213.68.169 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIRECTORY is vey well established and followed consensus on Wikipedia.

So? I am talking about one destination on Changi Airport that never exist/launched, no fleet and no passenger ever recorded, it's just the airline's outdated plan.

So please stop reverting edits, unless you understand what are you reverting. Provide reference to prove your revert. And don't forget to sign your post.--140.213.68.169 (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewgprout has an issue clearly here; I note your distress to by having verifiable edits reverted. I have noted this, as the user is intent on damaging pages it seems due to personal problems in bothering to check provided references. EireAviation (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pisupo Lua Afe (Corned Beef 2000). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Aubernas (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newquay Airport

I can see a potential edit war starting back at Newquay airport w.r.t. a comment that you very rightly made about booking portals not being reliable sources for future flight schedules. Keep an eye out and dive in as you see fit. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I found what might be a reasonable reference, so it may be a moot point now. --10mmsocket (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oslo Airport

Hi, I thought we could talk here about our disagreement over the airlines & destinations section of Oslo Airport, Gardermoen instead of just pointlessly reverting each other edits. You keep claiming that my edits are "not encyclopaedic." Resume dates for routes (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) are included in the guide for how airport articles should be formatted (Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Airlines and destinations|here). I do realize that I didn't add sources to some of my additions (I later went and added sources to a few of them), but did you have to revert everything? Even the things that were properly sourced? I don't want to fight about this, but could you please just actually look at all the stuff you're reverting? Sure, some things weren't sourced, and I'm fine with you removing that, but did you have to remove everything else? I'm sorry if I'm coming off as hostile, but it's just that I spent two whole days correcting and adding information to the destinations section to make sure that it was as accurate as possible. Would you be OK with me editing all the stuff that was properly sourced back in (but taking out the few things that weren't? NewYard25 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester airport disambiguation

In case you are unaware, "Manchester (UK)" for the airport in England is used because a certain Manchester–Boston Regional Airport in the US state of New Hampshire is written in airport destination lists as "Manchester (NH)". The disambiguation occurs not only in said lists with both (such as Chicago O'Hare's and Orlando's), but also in various articles with one or the other, including Atlanta's, Baltimore's, or Tampa's, and for various non-US airports such as Barbados' and Montego Bay's (though technically North American and with US services).

While I could discuss the Panama Cities, Portlands, or the more numerous (and notable) San Joses and Santiagos with airports off the top of my head, in this context Montego Bay's airport not only has existing US services, but also northeastern US services in addition to its UK ones, and additionally bore the "Manchester (UK)" disambiguating term under TUI Airways.

I can also flip your edit summary argument and say, "do not assume that because something can be seen on Wikipedia in one place that it isn't appropriate everywhere". Mind you there was the possibility that the parenthesed term was removed from the TUI entry and another editor would restore it under an identical if not similar argument.

Given this context, I propose the disambiguating term remains in the case of the Sangster International Airport article and others like it. ChainChomp2 (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChainChomp2: It is normal only to disambiguate if confusion is likely to occur. In this case because one airport is qualified (NH) does not mean the reverse needs to be qualified also. This is the case here. Manchester(NH) is a tinpot operation with very few routes, both TUI and Virgin are well known as British based airlines and it is not unreasonable to suppose that when Manchester is written in relation to a place way more connected to the UK than to NH there the absolute likelyhood is that the context is Manchester UK. The readers who don't get this will probably be confused by the two letter qualification anyway (many people in the world don't understand the difference between ME and OR for example, and NH is a chain of Dutch hotels!) and a solution is only ever a click away. Adding UK in such cases as is being supported here is quite unhelpful. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewgprout and Username006 please STOP!

I noticed that both of you were fighting for an edit in the page of British Airways Flight 9. This was getting on the verge of an edit war. Let's just not do that. Username seems correct and it is rather well known^[who?] at this point that the flight number was BA009. KlientNo.1 (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC) @KlientNo.: "rather well known" is not a valid concept within Wikipedia.[reply]

Nice!

Keep disappearing on the page of Talk:1968 Heathrow BKS Air Transport Airspeed Ambassador crash. 😐 Username006 (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try to build a consensus

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. I would like to build a consensus surrounding our dispute over Minneapolis-Saint Paul Airport, specifically the availability of Mexican and Caribbean destinations. Please leave a message on my talk page. Your edits will stay until we reach an agreement. PlaneCeiling912 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PlaneCeiling912: firstly I have made one revert to this page in the recent past - the revert is a valid and expected cosequence of the the bold, revert, discuss cycle. So there is no question of my edit being classed as an edit war. I made the revert because you based your reasoning on slight evidence. The real problem here is much of the detail in the destination tables is at best marginally encyclopaedic - however removing it saying it is not in the timetable for next week is not really an acceptable edit - such churn is not what Wikipedia is about, it is an Encyclopaedia not a directory. How I would deal with these entries if you truely believe that the route does not exist and is unlikely to exist within say the next six months and it is unreferenced - go ahead and delete and simply say it is unreferenced. Any unreferenced detail on Wikipedia can be deleted in this situation and it is not your job to justify this under WP:BURDEN. If it has a referece I would leave it unless it is absolutely obvious it is not current or you have a sensible reference that the route has permanently been abandoned. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'perished' a euphemism?

Could you clarify how 'perished' is a euphemism? "Suffer death, typically in a violent, sudden, or untimely way" is a far more accurate definition of the pilot's death than simply 'killed'. As an example of other use in Wikipedia is the b-class article The Holocaust, and is apparently acceptable there Strangerpete (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Airport.

Do NOT remove the notice on Cork Airport. Cork Airport is closing to facilitate runway reconstruction. And if you don't believe me have a look at https://www.corkairport.com/news/detail/2021/06/21/major-capital-investment-projects-for-cork-airport Trainsspotter4life (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsspotter4life: I don't take kindly to such threats. Adding this detail to the correct textual section of the article may be appropriate if in an encyclopaedic manner. Wikipedia is not a directory and your additions are purely directory type information in this form. Please stop adding this in this way. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Trainsspotter4life (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that a threat bruh Trainsspotter4life (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icon remove

Despite on this WP:ICON and WP:FLAGS, can I remove the flag icon in some of the airline destination list like List of Vietnam Airlines destinations? Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits to multiple wikipedia pages regarding Airports

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to bulk remove content and use WP:RS out of context, as you did at Cork Airport, Dublin Airport, Shannon Airport, Zurich Airport amongst others you may be blocked from editing. EireAviation (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, your report on the Admin page got nowhere because it has no basis in fact. You are more than welcome to re-submit this material again, but your recent contribution of flat out ignoring the sourcing because you can't get your own way is rather disappointing. EireAviation (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]