User talk:Golich17

Flags

See: WP:AIRLINES#Flags in the infobox. Thanks/wangi 18:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please do not add these flags without discussion/consensus. Thanks/wangi 00:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SkyTeam

It looks like I wasn't the only other one reverting to the original style, so hopefully he/she will get the message. DB (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

The reason you were blocked can only be discovered by looking at the block summary you got. Did it give a blocking admin, the name of the blocked user, and a blocking reason? Often these problems arise from an "autoblock", which happens when you are (unknowingly) sharing an IP with a vandal. AOL is the most usual culprit, but not the only one. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

777

Not needed is fine with me but if you want a source i will give you 5 --Bangabalunga 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Please do not remove these sections completely without discussion, and please don't change the titles to "External Links", "External links" is the correct heading. Thanks/wangi 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove the sections... I moved them near the bottom of the page as they are not of significance.--Golich17 20:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but please stop capitalising section headers - we do not use initial caps, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). Thanks/wangi 20:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Fleet

Don't delete another editors comments. If there are in the wrong place, especially after a long period of time, move them. Vegaswikian 22:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:San diego intl bag.jpg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Image:San diego intl bag.jpg, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.san.org/images/splash/sdcraa/c3_r1.jpg. As a copyright violation, Image:San diego intl bag.jpg appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:San diego intl bag.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Image talk:San diego intl bag.jpg. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Image:San diego intl bag.jpg, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Hawaiian717 06:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:San diego intl.jpg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Image:San diego intl.jpg, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.san.org/images/photos/t2_ext1_fpo.jpg. As a copyright violation, Image:San diego intl.jpg appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:San diego intl.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Image talk:San diego intl.jpg. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Image:San diego intl.jpg, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Hawaiian717 06:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To/Into

Whatever. Warn all you want. "Entry into service" is a standard aerospace term. I have proven with links and references and you refuse to believe it. I'm going to keep changing it. If you persist in changing it back, I will take it to arbitration and I will win, as "Entry to service" is not the standard term. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked with my grammar expert and she said 'Entry into service' is the correct form. Vegaswikian 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you've done some backchecking with another user. Wikipedia policy about "to"/"into" would not apply in a situation like this. You have to be flexible in order to allow the entry to be accurate. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, I agree with both of the above, and having been around here rather longer than you have, I would humbly offer this bit of advice: it's not worth getting your knickers in a twist, especially over two letters. You also don't have a leg to stand on in the grammar department, and you would get buried in an ArbCom case, so trust me on this one. Just let it go. You obviously have a passion for Wikipedia and what it's about, and these sorts of battles are the wrong way to exercise that enthusiasm.--chris.lawson 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Dtw.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Dtw.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization in fleet descriptions

Hi - I see from one of your edits that you are capitalizing comments on airline/fleet details. The proper casing on that information, I believe, should be that of a normal sentence since it isn't a title (Book title, section titles also aren't capitalized past the first word). Cheers --Matt 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you keep doing that on edits - I'm honestly curious about why you keep putting capitals on fleet tables.--Matt 06:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you check out Wikipedia's Manual of Style for capital letters. Cheers, and let me know if you have questions. I see you're doing lots of good editing, so I don't mean to be negative. --Matt 06:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me why Orders should be capitalized? Thanks --Matt 15:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy has its flaws, and this should be exempt from them.--Golich17 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you find fault with the policy, I suggest you discuss it on the policy talk page, rather than simply making edits without consulting others. Wikipedia is a group effort, and an unannounced attempt to change protocol by any individual, well-intended or not, is bound to cause a negative reaction. Thanks for your interest and understanding! --Helen

Whilst one may ignore the manual of style where one acts to improve the encyclopedia and where it seems plain that no editor should object to such flouting, it is exceedingly clear that there is no consensus here for your proposition that capitalization in such instances as these is consistent with professional standards and proper grammar, such that, as Helen suggests, you might do well to raise your concerns at the guideline's talk page rather than to edit in contravention of a generally-accepted guideline. Although even the prescriptivist in me cannot imagine a standard under which the use of majuscules in your formulations would be counseled, it is left to the community to decide questions as this, and so I would imagine that you might be more successful and productive as regards the sections of articles over which Matt and you seem to disagree were you to comport your editing with the MoS until such time as the community expresses its support for your propositions. If you should think me entirely wrong or wholly crazy (an eminently real possibility), you should feel free to drop me a note to that effect at my talk page. Cheers, Joe 21:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no reason grammatically to capitalize 'orders', as many have said. --Matt 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Continental Airlines, if you're going to do this, at least be consistent. You capitalized only a few "Orders" and left the others in lower case. I reverted your edits. Thanks, Postoak 02:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be repeating myself here: You obviously have a passion for Wikipedia and what it's about, and these sorts of battles are the wrong way to exercise that enthusiasm.--chris.lawson 06:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

The Wikipedia community appreciates following the Wikipedia:Manual of style, whether or not you believe it to be flawed. It happens to be the standard by which Wikipedia articles are written, agreed upon by community consensus. It is also used as one of the criteria for judging an article for "good article" or "featured article" status. If you want to change the style guidelines, there are avenues for doing that (starting out on the Manual of Style talk page), but trying to do so in an article that can be edited by a large population of editors already familiar with WP:MOS, strikes me as tilting at windmills. -Amatulic 00:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth opinion

As explained above in detail, you need to follow style guidelines until such time as they are changed though the process. If you continue to chage hedings, titles, etc. in opposition to standard practice, such changes will be as vandalism. - BillCJ 04:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an argument in the discussion page of the Manual style page. Hopefully this will create some sort of argument where we can finally compromise, because right now, it seems to me that everyone here has a different opionion, and someone should speak up, rather than deal with what is there.--Golich17 04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with everyone above but you, even though we may express ourselves differently. Good luck on the MOS Talk Page. If you get a consensus for your argument, I'll abide by it. - BillCJ 04:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATA Fleet Table

Hi Golich 17, I see the mistake I made; it shouldn't be in the table. Do you have a problem if I include the information in the fleet area but not in the table? Sox23 02:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've made the change. Sox23 02:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATA Pictures

Hey again Golich 17, I see why the DC-10 picture isn't any good (obviously it isn't even painted in ATA livery yet) but why don't the other pictures work? It doesn't say that that is a picture on the certain day the aircraft arrived; isn't it just to show people what the aircraft is and how it looks? Sox23 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will but I don't know how to cite the copyright information. Do you? I can't post the images without copyright info b/c they'll be immediately deleted. Sox23 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I am also in the process of uploading a picture of one of ATA's 757-200s which I took at PHX. Sox23 03:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked the photographer of the 757-300, Justin Cederholm, and he said it was fine with him if his pic was used so I uploaded it to the article. Sox23 06:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. We can expand the ATA Airlines page!--Golich17 16:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aviation lists

I've reverted the changes you made to this template for the time being. You did not discuss this before making the changes, and this template has been the subject of such discussion for some time now. You basically went around the consensus, which isn't cool. Because this is a very universal template, and works hand-in-hand with other aviation navigation-format boxes (for instance, see the article Boeing 767 or Boeing RC-135 to see how the templates match up), consistency is important.Akradecki 05:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trend seems to be going to nav boxes, rather than away...Boeing 707 now has three. The advantage is that they self-adjust to whatever screen size the viewer has, and you have to keep in mind that the world as a whole hasn't kept up with the folks in the US who can afford to go out and buy the latest high-res monitors. And as I said, they are consistent...you don't have a bunch of different size boxes on a page. You might want to consider jumping on the bandwagon and converting the others over yourself. Akradecki 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cheat...I take an existing box and cut and paste the existing code into a new template, then edit the contents to what I want. For instance, Template:Q-UAVs started out as the ubiquitous Template:Airlistbox. Enjoy, and if you get stuck feel free to ask questions. Akradecki 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the ATA box looks great! Akradecki 02:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATA Template

My changes fixed the wierd breaks where the '•' starts a line. It also allows the template to display correctly on any size screen with any user selected font size. It does not assume one size is what everyone uses then only displays correctly on that screen and incorrectly on every other set of screen settings. Is there something specific that my changes broke? Vegaswikian 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screen size is not the only criteria. You also need to consider the resolution and font size used in the browser and if the window being used is full screen or not. All of those are variable. This is why you should not attempt to force a specific format. Define the layout and then let the brower do the formatting based on each users window and settings. I don't think you can still say that the 15in monitor is still the norm. Many systems now come with 17in and many laptops have a widescreen. My old monitor died and I replaced it with a nice 19in wide screen for $150. Vegaswikian 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad, I removed many codings before I understood what it did and why i was a good thing is specific cases. Vegaswikian 00:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines

Hi! I noticed that you reverted all my edits to Singapore Airlines (diff). The article is currently undergoing a major rewrite (see Talk:Singapore Airlines for a to-do list) and your help would be appreciated. I have restored the latest version before your edits (diff). Sincerely, Oden 21:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. I just uploaded a bunch of freely-licensed images to commons:Singapore Airlines. Check it out. --Oden 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary and preview

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! --Oden 08:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Oden 08:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Midfield.jpg

I could find no evidence from the Indianapolis Airport website that this image had been released into the public domain. As a result, I've changed the tagging on this image to {{fairusein}}. --Durin 20:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simarly, I've changed the tag on Image:US Air.jpg. The Star Alliance Media Library is not a free repository. Their copyright statement does not release their images into the public domain. Please see [1]. --Durin 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Dtw1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Dtw1.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Dtw2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Dtw2.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Dtw1.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Dtw1.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Durin 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Dtw2.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Dtw2.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Durin 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

While I completely agree with your statement that date formats for articles about American subject should follow American convention, changing them serves no purpose. The software formats linked dates (in a limited number of recognised formats) according to user preference.--chris.lawson 01:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit-Metro

Hey Golich 17. I just added the issue to the discussion page on WP:Airports. Feel free to give your opinion.

Don't bother checking; I didn't realize that Detroit-City was practically nothing and when people see Detroit they assume it's DTW. I'll change the edits. Thanks Sox23 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'm from Chicago so I didn't know what airport was what. All of the changes have been reverted. Sox23 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Airways

It's like banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain to editors and US and HP are two different airlines owned by US Airlines Group. Yes the two are separate. Revering changes that try to combine these are just fine in my opinion. It is easy to ignore changes that don't reflect facts. If there are errors, feel free to correct them. Do I ignore some? Yep. Is that right??? Vegaswikian 03:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The combined table belongs on US Airways Group. Vegaswikian 03:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks on Today in the Sky

Golich, I've been following your posts and remarks for some time now, both on wiki and Today in the Sky, and I find them to be very resourceful and informative. You seem to have an excellent grasp on aviation and related subjects. My compliments. Neo16287 10:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of planes

Hi Golich, Some good edits on Qantas. But can I suggest putting the names of planes back - it's interesting to see what sort of things Qantas has thought worthy of honouring over the years. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restore a summary of the information and copy to details to a new page. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. See what you think, and feel free to make whatever changes you feel appropriate. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines 2

Some editors seem to feel a bit possessive of the Singapore Airlines page, and they have been somewhat antagonistic in reverting edits they don't like. However, getting in an edit war won't help. Just bring up the most important issues on the talk page and try to form some kind of consensus (that doesn't mean a unanimous decision; if one or two people refuse to accept any kind of compromise, that doesn't mean it can't be implemented). However, anything written on a Wikiproject is just a guideline. So, while it's a good idea to follow them, and they generally make pages look better, they don't have to be followed, and they aren't official policies. DB (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any way to make them policies, because they seem to be working.--Golich17 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Policies are more for general, WP-wide issues. This would be too specific. DB (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this article, just hang on. I think we can get the mediator to consider putting a deadline on the discussion, after which the changes should be made.--Shakujo 04:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Editors's stubbornness is reflected in their ban logs. Unfortunately for them, past behaviour is considered by many editors/admins to be an indicator of future intentions. Don't give up, we have a justifiable argument and additional concensus won't hurt, since you can only win the type of tag-team reverting that went on before if you have enough editors backing them, which Huaiwei doesn't.--Shakujo 07:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we had better get clear exactly what is wrong with the SQ page. What specific edits would you make?--Shakujo 08:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SkyTeam and Template:Star Alliance

Hi Golich17,

Why would you make the edits you made. They are harder to read and comprehend, and they are more difficult to edit...

Sorry you're not keen on the amendments. The intention was to use a standard template format, align the subheadings and use less obtrusive separator characters. If nothing else, I'd at least recommend the latter, as on the desktop and laptop screens here the current separator characters (the bullets) draw more attention than the links between them. As to their being more difficult to edit, I guess that's a matter of familiarity. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codeshare flags

Please stop adding those flags to airliner Codeshare tables. The flags relate to a country but the articles are about airlines. They are pointless because very few readers will recognise more than a tiny proportion of them. This makes them mere decoration or padding, and makes the pages they are on look amateur. I assume you like them but I have been editing WP since January 2003 and I assure you they look very odd. I will remove all I see, so please don't add any more. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the edit summary

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! --Matt 17:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and preview too so we don't see 10 edits on one section in 10 minutes :) --Matt 23:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Carpet Club (and others)

Where was the agreement that a list of locations of airline lounges should be in an encyclopedia article? DB (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Admirals Club. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. P.B. Pilhet 22:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the article into American Airlines. Please do not jump to conclusions. I have discussed in the edit summaries what I have done.--Golich17 22:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake; I'm using VandalProof, and the particular edit that you made which I checked had a blank edit summary. That's why it's important to leave an edit summary for every edit that you make. Otherwise, a recent changes patroller may very well mistake your constructive edit for blanking vandalism. Again, sorry. -- P.B. Pilhet 22:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flags in Articles

I don't recall seeing any consensus against them, just Arpingstone saying on Talk:Qantas and your talk page that he didn't like them. One person's opinion does not consensus make.

If bullet points are going to be used, they might as well be bullet points that add information, rather than just blank ones. The average wikipedia reader has significantly more education than the public at large -- besides, if someone doesn't recognise 75% of the flags on the American Airlines page, that's pretty pathetic. Heck, you'd only have to recognise the American flag to know 75% of the ones seen. Wikipedia is about expanding people's horizons and helping them to learn more, not removing innocuous information because one user thinks the lowest common denominator doesn't already know it.

Suggesting a merge, then executing the merge 2 hours later before anyone had a chance to comment, leaving out half the article in the process, is more concerning. You did the right thing by asking, but next time give people a chance to respond.

I feel that AAdvantage should be it's own page. There's a lot to be said about it, particularly being the first frequent flyer program ever. There are many other frequent flyer programs with their own pages, like Asia Miles, EuroBonus, Flying Blue, KrisFlyer, Aeroplan, Miles & More, Skywards, and even Qualiflyer (a program that no longer exists). If there is enough to say to warrant a full article for these, then surely AAdvantage, being the oldest and biggest, warrants a full article. Merging some of these programs has been discussed here (consensus: keep) and here (no consensus).

--Crocodile Punter 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, the flags are those of countries, the articles are about airlines. No connection! - Adrian Pingstone 11:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navbar color in Template:Airlines of Poland

I see you changed this. While it is probably prettier than before, did you know the previous color was an exact match for the Polish flag? —Dgies^t c 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the alliance template

Oneworld, Skyteam, and Star Alliances' templates could be grouped better with the newer {{navbox generic}}. Separating groups like current members, future members, etc makes the template looks neater. An addition of its logo is a nicer touch as well. I hope you reconsider. --Zack2007 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Klm03.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Klm03.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:US Air.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:US Air.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section moves

You recently moved a few sections in the Singapore Airlines article in two edits (e.g. [2] and [3]). In the first of these edits, the edit summary is "→Cabins - moving", yet the entire section disappeared. In the second edit, the summary is "→Codeshare agreements", yet all you were doing is pasting the "Cabins" section after "Codeshare agreements". Neither of these edits makes any sense at all when viewed by itself.

Please use better edit summaries (as at least two comments above ask you to) and move sections in a single edit. Brian Jason Drake 05:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]