User talk:HkCaGu/Archive 2008 Jul-Dec

Yeah well

The whole thing of links at Indonesian airport stubs is a bit of anightmare - any ideas? SatuSuro 03:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Timeline of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season

I'm willing to get rid of the upgrades/downgrades, but not the leaving AOR bit. We will never include other AORs other than PAGASA, and only because of its special naming practices. -- RattleMan 23:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Micronesia

I'm suitably embarrassed!! (Epistemos (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)).

ANI notices

Hello, HkCaGu. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the reinstatement of comments that have been censored. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Guangdong. Thank you. --David873 (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, HkCaGu. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the reinstatement of comments that have been censored. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Nanyue. Thank you. --David873 (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hub/Focus City Infobox list

Hey HkCaGu! Are hubs listed by their size or alphabetically? Cause My edits are keep getting reverted on the American Airlines page since user wanting the hubs listed in alpha order but all the other airline's pages have their hubs listed by size. So weird huh? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WP:AIRLINES for this issue and 2 editors are already in favor of listing the hubs in aphabetical order. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

If someone's ethnicity is more than obvious, it should be more than easy to provide a verifiable reference for it. Per WP:BLP and WP:V, this is your next step, not reverting to restore an unsupported category. --John (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability doesn't equal sources/references. Their parents (more famous than themselves) have their own articles. There's no controversy with their ethnicities. HkCaGu (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. If these people's ethnicities are notable, there will be easily obtained reliable sources on them, rather than on their relatives. If no such can be found, the category does not belong. --John (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted about this at Category talk:People of mixed Asian-European ethnicity, and I'd welcome your input there. --John (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Halong

The WPTC style guideline page sort of deals with it. We've never had a title with Severe Tropical Storm. It's only just been Tropical Storm. Even though STS is an official category of the JMA, it is not in other basins, even though tropical storm and tropical depression are official status in most of the other basins. It's just easiest keeping the titles to Tropical Depression, Tropical Storm, and Hurricane/Typhoon/Cyclone. You're welcome to propose a change, but I think it's easiest how we do it now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you wrote me back?

Did you got my e-mail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuturePil()t (talk • contribs) 08:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Re;

Hello my edit to delta airlines was constructive because it was not cited and a citation was needed. 24.128.245.177 (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From Mrqwerty987

hi, you just reverted my redirect - thanks , but how did you do so? wasn't sure how to fix this, what i wanted was a link like "if you are looking for wp:chonqing, please click here" - how do i make that? thanks! - mranony987

From Patrickhsu0905

Patrickhsu0905 (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Hello, HkCaGu, you have given me two warnings for "vandalising" the page titled Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport. My edit adds that Northwest Airlines flys to Honolulu,(via Tokyo) but it keeps getting deleted, I think by you, I have checked on the airports website http://www.taoyuanairport.gov.tw/web/english/schedule/newqueryfromfile_e.jsp . Go and see for yourself!!! For the meantime, I will still put Honolulu next to Northwest Airlines, unless you don't want people to know the truth.

In Google Earth the locater provides the lat/long using the min/sec format rather than the decimal. Both formats are technically correct. If you prefer to use the decimal, that is YOUR own personal preference and you may change them to the decimal format if you wish. However, to remove them because you feel that they are wrong, because you don't like the format that it was in, is wrong in itself. If you want them to be in decimal format instead, you are more than welcome to change them. A glass that is half empty is also a glass that is half full. There are many was to say the same thing and although it may not be the way that you would prefer to say it, it does not make either of them wrong. If you go into Google Earth, you may type in the coordinates in either format and they will still take you to the same place.

The coordinates links I removed pointed to the WRONG places--mostly the San Gabriel Mountains. If the links point to the wrong places, they are WRONG! Both CAN'T be right! HkCaGu (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect removal of edit

I do not appreciate your recent comment to me about a change which I made to the Narita International Airport article yesterday. Had you researched my addition properly, you would find that it was very correct, and requires no citation. Jetstar are in fact a major carrier to Narita International Airport, which can be confirmed on their website at www.jetstar.com.au. I am an Australian, have lived here all my life, and would be in a position to know this. I suggest you research something in future before you delete it and attack the person who edited the article. I am putting my addition back and expect it to stay there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.24.2 (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• A hub is when passengers connect from one flight to another on the same airline. Qantas and Jetstar Airways only have flights terminating and turning around at Narita International Airport.
• Qantas and Jetstar do not have a "major presence" at NRT. Many airlines have more flights into NRT.
• Qantas' and Jetstar's articles do not even have NRT listed as their hub.
• Jetstar isn't even serving NRT yet, and you are using present tense already.

From your contribution list and the lack of signature, you appear to be new to Wikipedia. Please use the "help" option on the left to become familiarized with Wikipedia. HkCaGu (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction and condescension. Seeing as an honest mistake is now considered vandalism, I guess I'll find some other forum for my suggestions. Vandalism indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.24.2 (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Los Angeles International Airport, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Your living in Los Angeles appears to be bringing about a conflict of interest in that you're deciding your home airport deserves a status with an airline which it has not been given and do not appear able to look at the matter objectively at this time. Thank you.

Commenting on your hometown airport may be a conflict of interest. I mean no harm nor do I plan to report you or anything like that. I've also offered and started a discussion on the LAX talk page rather than edit warring. I look forward to a calm all inclusive discussion as to what should be included in the LAX article for the area in question and will make my best effort to ensure that it is as civil and friendly an interaction as possible. I'd also ask you not revise my talk page other than your own replies. Thank you and my apologies for any offenses.

LAX (Hubs and Focus Cities)

Hey HkCaGu! I am getting a little worried about this. There has been numerous edit wars on focus cities/secondary hubs listing on an airline articles. I have put LAX on my watchlist just in case further edit warring occurs (it might will with LAX) in the next 24 hours. Cheers! Cashier freak (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America Arbitration Request Filed

Hi. Please be informed that an arbitration request has been filed for Virgin America regarding the LAX focus city dispute in which you have been included as an involved party. Best Regards 45Factoid44 (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Medcab

You have been named as an interested party in a MEDCAB case relating to Virgin America.

I have taken the case on as mediator.

Please would you review my comments on the article talk page and indicate whether you are happy to go forward with mediation as outlined.

Canadian spelling

What does the Commonwealth have to do with it! www.dictionary.com, "Center" is the right word, not "Centre" Thenoflyzone (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Mayalld (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

NcSchu just brought this to my attention as well. Thanks. I didn't realize the rule only applied to Wikipedia editors. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

US Federal nationality Law (8 U.S.C. § 1402) included on the report

This is part of the US Nationality law; I submitted to the Wikipedia community this US Nationality law to be included on the article. I require a consensus of the Wikipedian community to include this. This is an encyclopedia and all the US Nationality laws must be included on this article. (Seablade (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Check the reference that I included it, this is a US Federal Law. Please review it. This is an encyclopedia and the truth must be there. We like it or not? (Seablade (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)) The principal reason of Wikipedia is educational.

US Federal Nationality Law - 8 U.S.C. 1402

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=f17d875922fd5f6d4f2d9d55032bdb49

(8 U.S.C. § 1402) I included this federal nationality law to this encyclopedia article to get the most accurate information about the United States nationality law.

TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I § 1402. Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899 All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.

This is part of the US Nationality law; I submitted to the Wikipedia community this US Nationality law to be included on the article. I require a consensus of the Wikipedian community to include this. This is an encyclopedia and all the US Nationality laws must be included on this article. (Seablade (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Thanks

		CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
		I think you deserve a big thanks for reverting the vandalism that targeted my edits this morning! NcSchu(Talk) 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Nashville International Airport

Hey HkCaGu! I am having a problem with User:45Factoid44 on Nashville International Airport. He reverted by edits saying that AA has 1 daily flight to ORD with mainline aircraft but according to their timetables all BNA-ORD flights are operated by American Eagle and the flight ended on November 2. He also changed Delta's Cancun start date from December 27 to December 20. I am wanting to know if it is correct. I am sooo fustrated with him and accusing us of putting the wrong info. Maybe you can talk to him. I have had it! Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Post office listings

You said: "Undid revision 255811387 by WhisperToMe (talk) dubious PO listing (not only one on USPS site), latte heights self-verifiable) (rollback | undo)"

How is this a "dubious" PO listing? The source is directly from the USPS itself. If there are more post offices, then there can be references for more (BTW, I also saw some contract postal units for other Guam cities, but I didn't list them) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW Please be careful about your edits. In this you removed all of the post office content even though the edit summary mentions only some things that could be tweaked - What would have been better is if you simply combined the references to the Barrigada PO and removed the address. Wholesale removal is okay if material is unsourced, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the Inarajan PO one could simply say "XX post office in nearby Inarajan." - but the USPS listing mentioned "Santa Rita" as the address. I know on the mainland that USPS city designations do not necessarily translate into the actual municipality, but I'm not sure how this works on Guam. Regardless the USPS listings are what I have. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

Well, the thing about Wikipedia is that, as stated at WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." - In that case it leads to "everything must be directly supported by sources, much of the contents about small societies will be wiped out" - It's unfortunate, but WP:V is one of Wikipedia's core policies.

However, if content about Guam's villages is written in published, third party sources, then it will really help. Also finding archives of Guam newspapers will help too (Surely Guam articles are available in microprint, there). Also, about "There are no visitors from 60 miles away or 600 miles away, only 6000 miles away." there could be info written about Guam in Japanese and Korean papers, and you are allowed to use sources written in other languages. It is preferable that English sources are used, but sources in other languages work too. Of course Guam's newspapers (yes, newspapers can be used) are written in English, so surely they write about individual villages.

As for small villages, I'm hoping to get Bellaire, Texas, a small city surrounded by Houston, into a WP:GA - Once it becomes a GA I hope to use it as a model for small cities throughout the US, including those in Guam. It may help to encourage villages to establish websites; I know Dededo has one. Dededo could upload more info that could be cited. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

interesting Guam

Your comments to Whisper to Me about Guam was very interesting! Chergles (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:122.54.244.115

I suggest you compile a list of all of the IPs involved in the vandalism, and report it to WP:ANI. It is possible that a rangeblock may be in order here. Cirt (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That would all be up for discussion at WP:ANI, but first you'd have to show what's going on. Cirt (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Swiss SFO-ZRH

The correct name for the airline is "Swiss International Air Lines" as there is a space between air and lines. I just wanted to know if there is a source for this route starting or is it even bookable? Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I just checked LX's website and found no flights between SFO and ZRH nonstop on July 1. Only flights listed is that yu have to go thru ORD. I left a message on the user's talk page to provide a source for the alleged route. As for the incorrect routes the IP listed, BKK and SIN does not even use the same flight number, CAN has been delayed for a year due to high fuel costs, and TPE has a aircraft change at NRT. All those route can be verified at unted.com! Cashier freak (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If LX is added again without a source, can you remove it? Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

ROC vs. Taiwanese

You said: "Taiwanese is OK, ROC must be introduced, but that'd be excessive)" - I don't understand why it would be a problem to say ROC multiple times when it is in fact correct. There is no "Taiwanese" government; the whole ROC controls other islands, such as Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu. Also Taiwan is mostly covered by Taiwan province, but Taipei and Kaohsiung are not a part of it. It is correct to say ROC when you refer to the national government. For local governments, one would clarify i.e. "Taiwan Province government" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The MOS is here: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Republic_of_China.2C_Taiwan.2C_and_variations_thereof - It says to use ROC (Taiwan) when "When referring to the state in article space after appropriate disambiguation has been given (Do not replace all instances of "Republic of China" with "Republic of China (Taiwan)" unless explicitly part of the official title.)." - This is clearly the government in this case. The MOS clearly states to use ROC when referring to the national government. There are times when Taiwan is appropriate, but this isn't one of them. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If all of the authorities are in Taipei, why not say "Taipei authorities"? Or if we can name specific groups we could just do that. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Taipei is POV; it could be accurate or inaccurate depending on where the authorities are based. I'll see which authorities the phrase refers to and if I find them, I'll name them. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Alright - the Japanese source I found specifies that ROC Civil aviation authorities ordered China Airlines to do the training and reevaluation - Civil Aviation Authorities are from the national government, not the provinces, county, or municipal governments. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The MOS specifically states that one uses ROC "When giving the names of official state organs" - "Taiwan" is NPOV when referring to places of birth or subjects specific to the island. On the other hand the aviation authorities are specific to the ROC government. If you wish to clarify this, I may start a talk page section on the naming conventions page. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • To clarify this I started Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#How_to_refer_to_civil_aviation_authorities_of_the_Republic_of_China WhisperToMe (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I wonder if a Taipei Times article will state which agency ordered CI... - BTW I added the abbreviation at the lead. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, here [1] - If you read the talk page here Readin said:

• "If the aviation authorities for Taiwan are part of Taiwan's national government, then use "Republic of China" for describing those authorities. On first use be sure to mention that the "Republic of China" is commonly known as "Taiwan". Continue to use "Republic of China" (or "ROC") to describe those authorities."

So, you don't mention the ROC in the lead, but towards the bottom you describe the authorities as being from the ROC. That is what he meant. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Xinjiang Flag

Please review my post in Talk:Xinjiang#Flag_of_Xinjiang regarding my edits to the "Flag of Xinjiang". In accordance with your change, I have removed the words "Flag of Xinjiang" but left the image and description intact. My reason for doing this was to correct a broken link; I am not taking a position on whether this is a legitimate flag or not. I think there is bound to be some controversy around this, so it might be best fleshed out in the Discussion page, but if you're an expert on Xinjiang I'd certainly respect your decision to remove the flag altogether. It is not acceptable, however to leave a non-functioning image link in the article. In addition, please review Flag_of_China, which is where my information came from. Respectfully, Daqron (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)