Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:40, 7 January 2008

Archives!

• Archive 1

British Airways

Thanks for the clarification on the Manchester Airport situation with BA. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 17:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Continental Airlines

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --LeyteWolfer 05:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some research on your hand before you accuse me of breaking the 3-revert-rule. I was reversing vandalism each and every time, and the last time I checked this was not a violation of the 3RR. If you need some explaining, the anon user 67.170.147.184 continuously changed an entry in the article to make it seem like Continental Airlines had Boeing 777-200LR aircraft instead of Boeing 777-200ER aircraft, which is simply not true. The anon user was continuously on the offense in his edit comments, saying words such as "prove it", "idiot", and "wrong" and then when I did "prove" it, he simply reverted it again and said that he didn't care. Fortunately another user corrected it this time, however it clearly shows no wrong doing on my part. Thank you. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Response here. --LeyteWolfer 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifically when two users revert each other's edits simply because they disagree with one another's edits. That was not the case here, in which I was reverting an edit that was clearly false: Continental does not have 777-200LR aircraft, they have 777-200ER aircraft. I find it absurd that I should ignore the correction of false information simply because of the 3RR. I understand how it could easily have looked like an edit war, but I also had indications that the anon user was a vandal, especially after he/she ignored referrals to sources. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Airport colour changes

In retrospect, I agree. Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Newark Airport logo

Well... Do you still think SVG version is worse than PNG. About that it's on my user page... Look: Nowhere it's said "My creations", but "my contributions" and... This is one.
Javitomad (...tell me...) 14:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Learn some manners

When editing wiki, there's no need to use the summary lines to insult other people & call their contributions "silly". Grow up; you're not a teenager anymore. - Theaveng (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I was in fact not specifically calling you silly. If you re-read the edit comment you'll see I was calling the use of abbreviations in general, such as "w/", silly, because they really don't make sense in the context of an article when space-saving is not required. Seriously, "silly" is a very light and comical word to use (unlike, "stupid", which is by far immature). You're over-reacting, especially telling me to "grow up" (no need to insult people, eh?). In fact, you end up being slightly hypocritical by doing the exact same thing you scold me for in your edit comment. I hope there's no need to have this very minute and, if you'll excuse me, silly, incident get in the way of editing. Regards, NcSchu_(Talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

EWR-AMS

Try going to NWA's website again. No NWA operated EWR-AMS flights are loaded into NWA's schedules. The only flights i have found is Northwest Airlines Flight 8658, which is operated by KLM. Flights from EWR-AMS won't happen for the next 2-3 months. Also check the EWR website. Bucs2004 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the problem, I was using the default dates that the NWA spits out, whereas you were probably using today's date. Doing some date-picking I've found that the NWA flights begin on January 6th. Even though it's in a couple of days I'll still add in the end/begin templates. Thanks. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminated destinations

To my knowledge, terminated destinations are NOT relevant to airports but ARE relevant to airline destination lists. Is there a place where a group of people came to a consensus about airline destinations? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Which talk page? And how is "historically relevant" defined?

Anyhow, I make sure that all such terminated destinations have citations (my favorites are those explaining why the routes fell, i.e. BA with Zimbabwe, AC with Delhi, etc.) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America destinations

I completely agree with you. I've replaced the new article with a redirect to the section you re-instated. I also included a comment that the article shouldn't be re-created without discussion in the Talk page ... richi (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Section names

The reason why each of the sections of "Terminated destinations" begins with "Terminated in " is so the sections may be linked.

If I tried to type in British Airways destinations#Asia to get a list of terminated destinations for Asia, instead I would get the *first* Asia section, which lists destinations not terminated.

Also if one finishes editing a section, Misplaced Pages redirects to the *first* section bearing that name.

In order for a section link to work, the names have to be unique. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bethlehem Steel

You are spending way to much time making sure people cant show their images of bethlehem steel on their own sites rather than contributing to the article. My work is in the Permanent Collection at the Moma, is that notable enough for you? What have you done thats notable except get into college and replicate a few logos? If you dont have anything to add to the bethlehem steel article then i suggest you go back to copying logos. Leave this to the professionals and stop preventing people from having access to images to one of the most important industrial sites in our country. You've over stepped your boundaries and are only looking through a very shallow lens.

What you do in your real life is irrelevant. This is not real life, and there are rules. Personal attacks gain nothing, and they won't make your case stronger. I'm not making sure people can't show their images, that's what "Upload file" is for. Linking to personal websites, whatever you may call them is spam, and it's a clear violation of this website's policies. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)