User talk:Nrwairport

May 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Nrwairport", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it is an organisation name. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but my username "nrwairport" is no way an organisation name. Sorry if their was confusion.

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of airlines of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sky Harbor Airport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AA/US

Please note that AA and US still remain separate carriers as integration of both carriers will be completed by October 2015 )you can book flights on both airline's websites). There a discussion regarding this at WT:AIRPORTS. Please discuss there. Regards! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm Baseball Watcher. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Baseball Watcher 19:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments to you

Hey! its ABBAlover11011, i just would like to know why you removed my A320 picture from the American Airlines fleet page. Can you explain? I'm not upset, I just want to know why. ~ABBAlover11011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABBAlover11011 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nrwairport, I later found out that indeed that photo was Photoshopped from a Virgin America plane. Thanks for the conformation. ~ABBAlover11011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABBAlover11011 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

From ABBAlover11011

ABBAlover11011 (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hôtel de Ville, Arras

Hôtel de Ville, Arras should be fine as a stub now. The French article is much longer, but I don't have time to translate it right now.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ladakhi Women's Travel Company

Hey, this is Mrladakh. I saw that tagged the Ladakhi Women's Travel Company article as unreferenced. I was wondering why? It has many sources for everything that the article covers. Some are from well know Indian publications and some from international publications. I must admit, I don't write on wikipedia all that often, more or less only on Ladakhi topics. So I might not be up to date on all the rules. I did look at the Citing sources article, but did not quite see where I messed up. Could you clarify perhaps and I will try to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrladakh (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review before continuing to fight vandalism

Recently, you placed several warnings on user talk pages that did not make sense. See [1]. You claimed that all of these were automatic, and you had nominated them for deletion due to creating multiple redirects: [2].

Redirects are WP:CHEAP, and creating many plausible redirects is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it's desirable, as it aids in navigating the wiki. You nominated these for speedy deletion as per WP:G3, which is for obvious vandalism. You may wish to review what vandalism is and is not at WP:VANDALISM, as creating plausible redirects certainly is not vandalism. Unless someone intends to damage the wiki purposefully, it is not vandalism. Without an intent to do harm, it is at most disruptive editing. In this case, it was neither, as redirects are explicitly for plausible search terms.

When nominating articles for deletion, there is a check box in Twinkle that you can uncheck to not send a notice when placing a deletion nomination. Most of the time this should be checked, but when nominating multiple articles from the same author with the same reason, it is better to send one notice and then manually write a note to them saying that the notice also includes the other pages. Leaving duplicate notices on their page may overwhelm well-meaning editors, and can be a form of biting. Additionally, the last warning you placed as a final warning for vandalism was entirely unwarranted. The level 4 warnings should only be used after multiple previous warnings have been given or in situations that are particularly egregious (such as obvious vandalism that is clearly intentional, causes serious damage, and spans many articles before being caught). This is not a warning that can be placed automatically, so you had to have pressed several buttons to place it using Twinkle.

Please be more careful when placing warning templates. Misusing warning templates can drive away good editors or editors who have good intentions but just need some help to be productive. A new editor who mistakenly receives a level 4 warning will almost never come back to the wiki, and so placing unwarranted warnings can be disruptive. I do not doubt your good intentions, but if you drive away even a handful of good editors while reverting vandalism, the overall effect may well be a net negative.

Before continuing to patrol new pages and revert vandalism, please review what vandalism is, the criteria for speedy deletion, our guideline on biting newcomers, and consider enrolling in the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy for further training on how to deal with vandalism. I definitely welcome your contributions to the project, but this is an area where speed doesn't matter and accuracy is very important. Taking a few hours or even a week or more to learn how to effectively fight vandalism will result in you being a better editor and more able to contribute to the project. Thanks for reading this, and if you have any questions about anything (either this message or any policy, etc), feel free to respond here or on my talk page. ~ Rob^Talk 17:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones redirects

I create redirects for all tropical cyclones after they form. These pages usually just redirect to relevant sections of tropical cyclone season articles (in this case, 2015 Pacific hurricane season), but they sometimes become independent articles. I must ask, what is to be gained by discussing the creation of these redirects on talk pages? There is no chance of me facing opposition and there never has been. If you think this should change, I suggest that you take the issue to WT:WPTC. Thanks! Dustin (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must also add that you do not have 50,000 edits and have not been registered for six years as your user page indicates. Dustin (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustin V. S.: Yes I do, It was on another account in which I no longer have the password to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 August 2015

I am afraid to say I am doubtful of that. You don't have the proficiency with wiki syntax I would expect from a long-term user. To lessen doubt, can you at least name the account you refer to? Dustin (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustin V. S.: And how exactly do I not have "proficiency with wiki syntax" Nrwairport (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

I have removed your RFA because it's been prematurely transcluded. It's apparent by your attempts that you don't have the technical skills, quite yet, or experience to run for RFA. I suggest you read WP:RFAADVICE and WP:NOTYET. Your RFA will be closed within moments of being opened as candidates are expected to have thousands of edits and sometimes years of experience before becoming administrators. Mkdw ^talk 22:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest you link your former account if you're going to bank on the experience and edits accumulated from it. Mkdw ^talk 22:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic errors I noted:

You've unsuccessfully tried to transclude your RFA to the main page.
You've twice now been reverted for incorrectly changing a timestamp template on the main RFA
You haven't fully completed your RFA page before you tried to transclude it.
You incorrectly linked new page patrol and recent changes in question 1.
You failed to correctly remove the "subst" as instructed in this edit which would have removed the red text you were trying to remove from your RFA.
You don't use edit summaries.
Why did you blank the talk page of another editor? It appears you've done this before as well. Typically you shouldn't remove the comments of other editors from another editors talk page (other than your own) and leave it up to that editor which messages and warnings they keep.
You've received yourself borderline disruptive editing warnings for incorrectly warning other editors or unexplained removal of content.

Before you go further, I would clarify your experience and as mentioned above, provide your previous account name. Even so, as this point it would not seem like you have the technical experience required and you've made many mistakes that you would see from an editor with very little experience in the areas you suggest. Mkdw ^talk 22:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have declined many of your CSD and Prod nominations today. You need to learn the rules before nominating more things for deletion. -- GB fan 23:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your RFA as WP:NOTNOW. Community consensus was going to be clear; consider this like a WP:SNOW closure. I strongly advise you to read WP:RFAADVICE. Even if you have thousands of edits and years of experience, it's clear you do not have enough. You have made several mistakes that show you do not fully understand Wiki policies or have enough technical experience to receive these tools. Best wishes in the future, Mkdw ^talk 08:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Prods and CSDs

Here are the Prods and CSDs that I have declined.

-- GB fan 23:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To these can be added so far today:

List of Native American languages acquired by children ‎ CSD declined
Most expensive android apps ‎ CSD declined
2015 Attock bombing taken to AfD, so far 3 * Keep votes
St Andrew's Kirk, Launceston CSD declined
William George Paulson Townsend ‎ CSD declined
Gunnar Blix PROD declined

You will notice by now that many of your actions at new page patrol are not meeting with agreement by other editors. The deletion notices can only cause confusion and discourage new contributors. Please slow down and ensure that you have mastered the relevant guidance before nominating further articles for deletion: Noyster (talk), 08:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined A7 of Yannick Deichmann

I've declined your A7 of this person. A professional footballer who has played for FC St. Pauli in 2. Bundesliga, the second level of German football, is a clear assertion of notability. Valenciano (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary tagging

Your new page patrolling appears to demonstrate very little understanding of tagging procedures and use of the Page Curation tool. This is a list of just some of your more recent irrational patrols that have been corrected or reverted by other editors:

Best Direction Award (Locarno International Film Festival)
Kevin O'Malley (Children's Book Writer) (since PRODed by another editor)
Abdul Rahim Malhas
Lewis Fogle
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Attock Suicide Attack
KOI-7599.01

Please do not review or patrol articles until you have significantly more experience and have read and fully understood WP:NPP. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of request at request for page protection

Do not remove others requests. An uninvolved admin will evaluate the request and determine if protection is required. In my opinion I do not believe your user page should be protected. -- GB fan 23:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esquivalience ^t 03:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Nrwairport (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Although I understand the consequences of my poor behavior, I think I should be given a final chance. If I get unblocked, I will not patrol new pages, as I am obviously bad at that job and understand that I should not do it any more. Except for posting inappropriate warnings and deletion tags, my edits to normal Wikipedia articles are constructive and I am an expert on aviation topics. I spend a lot of time trying to make Wikipedia articles better, and by being blocked I am restricted to doing that. If i'm unblocked I PROMISE to not post any warnings or deletion tags, because again, I'm not good at knowing when to do this and I obviously never understood the policy. I'm aware that I have been accused of sock puppetry with another user who doesn't speak English, I swear that's not true at all. I will help build this encyclopedia with all of the information I can find, but like I said, I can't do that when i'm blocked. I hope you take my unblocking appeal into consideration and you can hold me to these promises that I've made. If I don't, then I completely agree that I should be blocked indefinitely. All along, I had good intentions and did not purposely do those inappropriate tasks, I simply did not fully understand what the policy/rules of warnings/deletion tags were. My point is, I know I was wrong now but won't do any of these again. I really am here to build an encyclopedia and not to put warnings or deletion tags on pages. Thanks for your consideration! Nrwairport (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Although I understand the consequences of my poor behavior, I think I should be given a final chance. If I get unblocked, I will not patrol new pages, as I am obviously bad at that job and understand that I should not do it any more. Except for posting inappropriate warnings and deletion tags, my edits to normal Wikipedia articles are constructive and I am an expert on aviation topics. I spend a lot of time trying to make Wikipedia articles better, and by being blocked I am restricted to doing that. If i'm unblocked I PROMISE to not post any warnings or deletion tags, because again, I'm not good at knowing when to do this and I obviously never understood the policy. I'm aware that I have been accused of sock puppetry with another user who doesn't speak English, I swear that's not true at all. I will help build this encyclopedia with all of the information I can find, but like I said, I can't do that when i'm blocked. I hope you take my unblocking appeal into consideration and you can hold me to these promises that I've made. If I don't, then I completely agree that I should be blocked indefinitely. All along, I had good intentions and did not purposely do those inappropriate tasks, I simply did not fully understand what the policy/rules of warnings/deletion tags were. My point is, I know I was wrong now but won't do any of these again. I really am here to build an encyclopedia and not to put warnings or deletion tags on pages. Thanks for your consideration! [[User:Nrwairport|Nrwairport]] ([[User talk:Nrwairport#top|talk]]) 19:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Although I understand the consequences of my poor behavior, I think I should be given a final chance. If I get unblocked, I will not patrol new pages, as I am obviously bad at that job and understand that I should not do it any more. Except for posting inappropriate warnings and deletion tags, my edits to normal Wikipedia articles are constructive and I am an expert on aviation topics. I spend a lot of time trying to make Wikipedia articles better, and by being blocked I am restricted to doing that. If i'm unblocked I PROMISE to not post any warnings or deletion tags, because again, I'm not good at knowing when to do this and I obviously never understood the policy. I'm aware that I have been accused of sock puppetry with another user who doesn't speak English, I swear that's not true at all. I will help build this encyclopedia with all of the information I can find, but like I said, I can't do that when i'm blocked. I hope you take my unblocking appeal into consideration and you can hold me to these promises that I've made. If I don't, then I completely agree that I should be blocked indefinitely. All along, I had good intentions and did not purposely do those inappropriate tasks, I simply did not fully understand what the policy/rules of warnings/deletion tags were. My point is, I know I was wrong now but won't do any of these again. I really am here to build an encyclopedia and not to put warnings or deletion tags on pages. Thanks for your consideration! [[User:Nrwairport|Nrwairport]] ([[User talk:Nrwairport#top|talk]]) 19:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Although I understand the consequences of my poor behavior, I think I should be given a final chance. If I get unblocked, I will not patrol new pages, as I am obviously bad at that job and understand that I should not do it any more. Except for posting inappropriate warnings and deletion tags, my edits to normal Wikipedia articles are constructive and I am an expert on aviation topics. I spend a lot of time trying to make Wikipedia articles better, and by being blocked I am restricted to doing that. If i'm unblocked I PROMISE to not post any warnings or deletion tags, because again, I'm not good at knowing when to do this and I obviously never understood the policy. I'm aware that I have been accused of sock puppetry with another user who doesn't speak English, I swear that's not true at all. I will help build this encyclopedia with all of the information I can find, but like I said, I can't do that when i'm blocked. I hope you take my unblocking appeal into consideration and you can hold me to these promises that I've made. If I don't, then I completely agree that I should be blocked indefinitely. All along, I had good intentions and did not purposely do those inappropriate tasks, I simply did not fully understand what the policy/rules of warnings/deletion tags were. My point is, I know I was wrong now but won't do any of these again. I really am here to build an encyclopedia and not to put warnings or deletion tags on pages. Thanks for your consideration! [[User:Nrwairport|Nrwairport]] ([[User talk:Nrwairport#top|talk]]) 19:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}