User talk:Zaps93/archive03

Flybe

Hi, I noticed that you undid my edit. Why? Flybe, like other companies, faces controversies. The ones I have indicated were sourced (Guardian...). I believe that Wikipedia should give information about companies, not only from the company point of view. That's why I added this secttion. I'm not a vandal! Therefore I will revert your undo. If you disagree with me, feel free to leave a note on my discussion page. Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.23.153.100 (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a discussion page, also just guardian is much of a reliable source. Zaps93 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

ANA, Air Japan, etc

You can't always necessarily take what's shown on a map (even if its on an airline's website) and assume it to be correct. Sometimes they just might be accurate, but these things are often outdated, or don't show the real picture. For example the Air Japan 'route map' thay you're using a basis for your rants is incorrect. The long-running Narita-Bombay flight, for example, is not even shown. ANA (the parent) has a complicated relationship and route retionalisation with its numerous subsidiaries. The only way to be certain is to look at the schedules; for that, I'd suggest you lok at Amadeus, OAG or the like, or even at ANA's schedules - these will tell you who actually operates the service. As for the Air Japan site, well, besides being outdated, it's all in Japanese. So unless you can read the language, I wouldn't cite that as my rock-solid, unquestionable source. In any event, it seems someone else has also found - independently - the same thing: that the flights you so vociferously insisted were flown by one airline, were, in fact, flown by another airline. So, for your own good, check, double check, and check again before making random changes, before reverting other peoples' (valid) edits, and especially before running like a crybaby to an admin. Jasepl (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't turn this at me! What do you know about ANA?! Nothing! And calling me a cry baby... come on pathetic! Zaps93 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Zaps please dont get provoked, returning insults doesnt help. I have left a message at Jasepl talk page about personal attacks and also about destination articles. I have asked him to explain better when he/she reverts edits as discussion is better than edit warring. I also mentioned that their is a lot of good will to keep the destination articles correct and if you all worked together rather than continually reverting edits then wikipedia can only improve. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok Milborne, I will certainly do that, but I will say it is unlikely he will take what you said into context. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Flydubai

I'm a bit lost with your comment that "in U.A.E. they use hub not base" - whatever does that mean? I just listed base to reflect the fact that they're a point-to-point LCC and not a network carrier that would have a hub. Jasepl (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, I changed because they refer Dubai as a hub, not a base, and as the article is on flydubai, I put it down as Hub. Zaps93 (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, not a big deal. But a hub is a connecting point, where people depart from one flight to connect onto another one. LCCs typically do not have hubs, because they fo point-to-point flights, not connections. That would make Dubai its base.Jasepl (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi Airways destinations

my two bits

• There's no need to add JFK after New York when JFK was the only airport that was ever served. They dropped the whole city, not just the airport within the city. It's not as if they stopped JFK but still fly to LaGuardia. Same thing for Rio, London, Paris etc.
  • Listing Ellinikon in terminated is just simply incorrect. The airport closed down and everyone moved to the new one, Eleftherios. Does this mean we list Ellinikon as a terminated "destination" for every single airline that still flies to Athens?
  • Country names: either pick the name at the time it was served, or use current terminology. I see Soviet Union - that doesn't exist today, but presumably is listed as such because that's what it was called when Iraqi Air last flew there. But then I also see Mumbai - that city was called Bombay when Iraqi Airways last flew to BOM. My vote is for using current names (Czech Republic, Russia, etc etc - its a list of destinations, not a history lesson). In any event, pick one or the other, old or current. But consistency is required.
• The broader point is that we're talking about destination lists, in that London is the destination, not Heathrow. The airport is almost incidental in this regard; an additional bit of information, if you will.
• Whatever the consensus, I do hope that you and others involved follow through with it across the board, and do not stop at the Iraqi article. Consistency is essential here, so, if, for example, you insist on saying "Paris-Charles de Gaulle" in the terminated destination list for Iraqi Airways, then please go ahead and fix the lists of all airlines that have stopped flying to CDG, as well for London, New York, Washington, Chicago, Montreal, Buenos Aires, Shanghai, Toronto, Milan, Belfast, Moscow, Osaka.... And also please ensure that you add Ellinikon to the terminated list of all airlines that ever flew to Athens, even if they still fly there. Add Kai Tak to the terminated list of all airlines that ever flew to Hong Kong, Don Muang for all airlines that ever served Bangkok, Stapleton for everyone that ever flew to Denver....
• Oh and my understanding is that the BA list is the consensus format for current and terminated destinations. I remember explaining this to you already (taken from your talk page):

Can you please identify where you are getting your logic/justification/whatever from... Not that there are any hard and fast rules, but editors should adhere to existing guidelines. If you want them changed, or think they something should be done differently, then by all means discuss it. But please don't go assume that just because every little thing is not clearly spelled out, that you won't face resistance (from me and from other editors) when you go about trying to establish your own standard, of your own volition.

This is the current 'guideline' for the destination lists: [[1]] - and it applies equally to current as well as terminated destinations. There is no exception or different set of norms for one or the other anywhere.

Also, see here for further clarification of the above: [[2]]

As for the smaller destination lists, I'm not sure where you're getting the "if more than five then it's a table" and "flags are okay in tables". I don't recall ever seeing any consensus on either of those (just the opposite for flags). So, like I already said before, if you know where these matters were discussed and a consensus reached, then please point to it.

I'm sorry, but if you think that just because you think you put a lot of effort into something that will automatically give you free license to do what you feel like, well, then there's little I can say.

Jasepl (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jasepl (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Right then. That is what I said... Current format, not terminated, please cite a terminated format link, and before you say it is under cite '2' that is your point of view and not an agreed format. Zaps93 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines fleet

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edits to Delta Air Lines Fleet, because the photos were "not needed". Could you please clarify why you feel that photos aren't needed? I think photos would help, and the fleet sections of both the DAL and NWA articles feature photos of most aircraft.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

16:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I did the revert out of good faith as I would for any other. The reason why they are "not needed" is due to the fact a fleet table should only contain what is listed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content. I think that this issue is something which needs to be dicussed as it is slowly happening in other places but being reverted aswell for same reasons as I see. Not only is the WikiProject the reason, but to have;
*Boeing 737-700 (no picture)
*Boeing 737-800 (no picture)
the table will begin to look untidy and confusing, you see what I mean? Hope that answers your question and I am only doing as you do, keeping articles within guidelines. Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I was unaware of the guidelines.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

17:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's alright! I was at first! Do read through the whole thing, it will help! Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about this on WP:AIRLINES. You may feel free to comment. Charmedaddict (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SmartLynx Airlines destinations

The article SmartLynx Airlines destinations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reason for this list, can be included in main article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of SmartLynx Airlines destinations

I have nominated SmartLynx Airlines destinations, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartLynx Airlines destinations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Annonymous

How can you pinpoint the cause of this accident so soon after the accident? How do you know it was caused by turbulence? Electromagnetic Interference from a nearby powerful Naval Low Frequency Radio Transmitter in Puerto Rico could also be the cause. Pilot error is another. Failure of airspeed probes, failure of the autopilot or other equipment could also be the cause. The fact that the popular lapdog press indicates turbulence means nothing. The type of incident should be "Unknown" until there is a complete investigation. If you have an affiliation with Continental or other entity that wants to promote one cause over another, reveal it or remove the reference to turbulence.

All the references state the plane hit turbulence, as wikipedia is built apon references, that is what I put, I have no affiliation with Continental, and it seems you do! TURBULENCE IS THE REASON as witnesses on the plane describe aswell as the pilot! So make any accusations you want but for now, turbulence is the main reason and factor of the flight. Now just remember, FOLLOW THE RULES AND stop saying major news broadcasters like CNN and BBC are false because you 'seem to think you are right'! Zaps93 (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Continental Airlines Flight 128

hi, I've not asked about getting a photo as I thought you were going to do that. Are you aware that it is at AfD atm? Best to wait and see what happens there and what reply you get re the photo you asked about. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots! Yes, I am aware, I do believe I was the 3rd to comment with a 'strong keep', but yes, I think I shall wait an see, hopefully it will be allowed to stay, it seems important to keep as there was serious injury. Zaps93 (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Aer Lingus

Sorry again, Zaps93, but I had to remove the refs on the Aer Lingus destinations page as when you deep-link into the Aer Lingus website it redirects back into the home page. It was tried before and it didn't work. Also, the Cardiff route is only a special charter, and we don't list charters, only scheduled flights. Thank you, FF3000 · talk 12:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that is fine! :-) Zaps93 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

All of Egypt is not in Africa - the Sinai Peninsula is on the Asian continent

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/sinai.htm

Meaning Sharm and Taba are in Asia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koloth sfb (talk • contribs) 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, with that reference I see, ok, revert my edits, sorry! Zaps93 (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Atlantic Airlines logo.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Atlantic Airlines logo.png. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 06:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

About Corsairfly

Hi Zaps93, Unfortunately, I noticed that you undid the new Corsairfly article. This version is more complete and more latest. That's not a vandalism. Why have you delete it ? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by FabienHTA (talk • contribs) 22:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I did it as it was requested to be kept an eye on due to most of the information being copied from Corsairfly website and that it was not notable enough. Also the I.P adress was said to be that of something todo with Corsairfly, I did this as it was mentioned on the Wikiproject Airlines talk page. Zaps93 (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

I noticed that you created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zaps93, but never transcluded it. Would you like it deleted? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I would of sent it through but never got around to it, if you could for me that would be great as I shall be busy for the next 3 days. Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

swissair rfc

your input is invited at talk:Swissair#key_people, and the associated rfc regarding infobox parameters. as the outcome may have wide affect, the input of as many reasoned views as possible is needed. --emerson7 00:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Alitalia / Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane

I've now added the info to the correct article. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear! Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with the gallery in the Alitalia article. At the moment the images are all mixed up with the table, which is why I put them into a gallery. Other option is to add a column for images to the table. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Against rules for column in table! I accidently removed the images from gallery but never got around to re-adding, go change them back, but this time could you put them at the bottom of the 'Fleet' section? Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

AA LGA hub???

Since when did LGA became a AA hub? By looking at the number of mainline destinations it can't be a hub. I have started a discussion at the talk page. Please add your thoughts there. Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was. I said it wasn't! I reverted the edits of the other I.P as they were saying it was. Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I know you didn't add it but i was just wondering if the IP knows something that AA doesn't. I was just curious since you didn't revert his edits again. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, my appologies. Yes, I would have to agree with you. I gave up reverting before and edit war broke out but soon enough the he/she will realise they are incorrect. Zaps93 (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. However, you can feel free to comment on the LGA hub at the talk page; also, i have added a dispute tag to the top of the page until we can figure out if the "New York" hub refers to both JFK and LGA. I would leave it alone for a while until it is settled. I think AA using New York as a hub is very vague. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Goodo. I have put my view across there. Zaps93 (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I put the ref to the announcement of the updated hubs for AA. We'll keep LGA listed as a hub for now. When i saw he continued reverting i just gave up too. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we just got to wait for other peoples views. Zaps93 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP who started this dispute has been blocked for a one month. But I guarantee that he will continue to add LGA as a hub. Lets just keep our fingers crossed. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! I guess we'll have to keep our eyes on the article, he may come back on a different I.P. Also, have you ever considered making a Wiki account? it would certainly been a much more helpful way to watch pages. Kind regards, Zaps93 (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would love to make an account but I don't know any good nicknames....all the good ones are taken. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just make up anything mate. It doesn't have to be anything brilliant... I just randomly came up with mine. Zaps93 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Olympic Air aircraft types

As we obviously disagree I have taken it to project to discuss Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Aircraft_sub-types. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's alright Milborne. Zaps93 (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Just like to say I was wrong to revert you again I should have gone straight to a talk page to discuss it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise, you are doing what you think is best. Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)