User talk:Lcary

Please do not removed sourced info just because you do not like it. If you have an issue about this code, please discuss it here or on the page's talk page first. And do read the provided source from the ICAO where the code is listed. Passportguy (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Liking has nothing to do with it. Accuracy does. LCEN appeared in an appendix to a meeting report as a PROPOSAL, not a fact. The only official source for ICAO 4-letter airport codes is ICAO Doc 7910 - Location Indicators. LCEN definitely does not appear within Doc 7910 as ICAO does not recognize Ercan as a legitimate international airport. The point here is that Wikipedia has incorrectly made use of ICAO when including "LCEN" on the website. Lcary (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LCEN is also quoted in other papers of the ICAO, e.g. [1], as well as being quote widely on airport sites around the internet. The fact that Ercan is not recognized as an international airport by most countries and the UN is stated in the article, however this does not change the fact that LCEN is being used, even by the ICAO. Passportguy (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing my point. ICAO, as a specialized agency of the United Nations, has clearly defined rules regarding the issuance of 4-letter codes. Whether a code is in wide use or not, appears in a paper or report from an ICAO meeting or not, does not change the fact that the code is not a valid ICAO code. Keep the code on the website if you like, but do not refer to it as an ICAO code, for it is not. Lcary (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that is is being used as an ICAO code, even by the ICAO itself. If you wish , you can add a footnote that the code does not appear in above document, but in order to deem it invalid/unofficial you would have to find a reliable source that states this as being such. Passportguy (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you determine the reliable source?Lcary (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The is no absolute standard for a reliable source, but generally it would have to be be from a professional site or publication and very likely should not be Greek, Cyrpiot or Turkish of orgin, as those tend to be one-sided.
I add a note to the reference btw. Passportguy (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked about determining the source is that I am a technical officer within ICAO and have provided the legal source above in ICAO Doc 7910. Lcary (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The note is not sufficient. Either "ICAO" or "LCEN" must be deleted. Lcary (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't want to dispute your expertise, I do want to note that you have only joined Wikipedia recently and only edited this article. Given the history of POV editing on Cyprus related issues, I am a bit hesitant to believe that your interest in this is purely professional.

Regardless : as I stated above, the code is in used as such even by the ICAO and a note stating that this use may not be fully official is perfectly fine within the scope of this encyclopedia. Passportguy (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is the mis-use of ICAO. Lcary (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]