User talk:VenFlyer98

This is VenFlyer98's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The Vault

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hello, just wanted to let you know I undid an edit you made reverting a previous edit on Gold Coast Airport. You reverted it as you said the changes (reflecting Bonza flight suspensions) were unsourced. The company has entered Voluntary Administration and announced all flights are suspended until further notice. This is a headline story across major national news outlets in Australia - eg. [1]. Just wanted to make you aware so you don't revert any other edits reflecting this unnecessarily. It looks pretty likely they'll resume as their aircraft have been repossessed and they have no real assets, so it's likely Bonza will be removed from Airlines and Destinations in the coming days once liquidation formally announced. Dfadden (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfadden:

Hello,

Of course I understand what is going on with Bonza. However, the user I reverted (and further more your revert of my edit) is unsourced. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. You need to include inline citations when making edits (see WP:IC).

Thank you! VenFlyer98 (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what your point and respect you rigid adherence to policy. I dont wish to argue with you, but I would I suggest since you are aware of the situation, rather than reverting good faith edits, wouldn't it be more productive to add a citation rather than revert the edit on the grounds of policy? In this case, reverting the edit is actually removing information that you know to be true and can be easily verified to enforce policy, which comes across as somewhat disingenuous, goes against the spirit of WP:BUREAU and doesnt improve actually Wikipedia. Furthermore, if you want to apply the rules in such a bureaucratic way, why only this article and not all the other Bonza destinations that show as suspended without inline citations? I would argue that it is highly likely the data relating to Bonza is going to be removed from these lists in the coming days (and you cant provide an inline citation for removed content - although its a good idea to annotate in the edit summary). Even if you dont want to add the citation, I think its reasonable to apply WP:Ignore here. But I'm not going to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman over something that won't likely wont matter in a few days. Thanks for responding and hearing me out! Dfadden (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfadden:

I understand, but can't I say the same to you? You've had your account for over a decade at this point, I'm going to assume in good faith you know how inline citations work when citing articles. If that is true, and you saw my revert for being unsourced (as it included no inline citations), couldn't you do a manual revert and add them rather than just revert and put the citation in the edit summary? That just brings it back to the original unsourced state. I only reverted some Bonza destinations as I wasn't actively going around to all of them, but going to do that now to clean them up. As I said, going to go clean things up now and yes, I should've just thrown the inline citations in myself, and not trying to WP:SHOOT, but it was more that I was doing several reverts at a time from a user who was listing the suspensions unsourced, and you know how WP:V is. Not trying to start anything, as we both know, Bonza is probably done in the coming days, but that's just my side of it. Thanks! VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that I also could have done better here and I apologise if I came across as confrontational. At the time when I reverted the edit, I was a little busy - it just jumped out at me as something that was obviously true and assumed that you may not have been across the news (I know, assumptions are dangerous!) Reverting was a quick fix. I left the citation in the edit summary as clarification in the honest belief that Bonza would be removed from the box within a day or two anyway, or at the very least there would be substantial changes to their route network rendering the source out of date by the time I had a chance to do a more comprehensive edit and clean up all the Bonza articles, or to help someone who may beat me to it.

Current and rapidly developing events are often the subject of contentious edits. I dont think we are far apart in our intent and I believe we both edit in good faith. Clearly we have a difference of opinion on where discretion is warranted regarding policy and will not change each other's minds, but I wouldnt want that to stop us from working to improve aviation content in a collaborative way! Thanks for all your contributions! Dfadden (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you undid my revisions for all the bus routes, but I feel that they should be added somewhere because they are technically operated by American Airlines and are included in the passenger count (the busses are just replacements for E-145s and other American Eagle Aircraft). BlindGiraffe123 (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlindGiraffe123: Hello, these routes are not replacement routes. Additionally they are not operated by American or any American Eagle carrier, they are operated by Landline which is not an Eagle carrier. This was previously discussed at WP:AIRPORTS and bus routes are a violation of WP:NOTTRAVEL.

Thank you! VenFlyer98 (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. BlindGiraffe123 (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at SkyTeam, you may be blocked from editing. Adding unsourced entries and marking them as needing sources is clearly accepting that there is a policy on citing every piece of information. You have violated WP:VERIFY. Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just digging the fact that this is a level 3 warning assuming bad faith. That's fun. VenFlyer98 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You already had a second-level warning for adding uncited material and are well aware of WP:VERIFY. I don't see the fun in this,--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must certainly be fun at parties. Just seeing what accurate information I can get on that page since you pretty much safeguard it. Totally get it violating policy, just seeing what I can push (understand that’s wrong). Have a good one! VenFlyer98 (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was just confirmed by Embraer, see above section that I also edited and sourced. In planespotter.net, which is the source for this section, it says that the ERJ-145s are in Mexicana's possession, so they should also be listed here. Aeromax38 (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for your help in editing & improving the article on Long Island MacArthur Airport – and for helping me better understand WP:AIRPORTS and WP:NOTTRAVEL. I have been wanting to start doing more work on airport articles for some time now (especially in and around the NY metropolitan area), as a local who has always adored infrastructure & aviation and as someone who has long enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia – and so I appreciate the feedback which you have provided me with in the change logs. I am hoping to eventually get the article to a rating of at least GA (it needs a reassessment no matter what, though, as it is still rated as start class; I believe the last time it was assessed was 2009), and so the refresher was greatly appreciated. Again, I apologize for those good-faith errors I made and appreciate all the feedback you left.

That said, I have a question regarding destination maps out of curiosity (I recall from a year or so ago that you told me they are sometimes unnecessary, when I added one to the article without realizing they weren't necessary for the article): when is it appropriate to include those maps in an article (if ever)? I have looked through the WP:AIRPORTS talk archives and read through the content section, but have yet to find any clear, straight-to-the-point answer to that respect (then again, I saw through the archives that they have long been a subject of debate). I will not be re-adding a destination map unless I know for certain that one is warranted – and would like to help add/remove them from other airport articles that I may come across, and so any advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks again.

Cheers, Infrastorian (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]