Why would you undo the edited destinations? I quoted a source that is the airlines schedule! It shows all their flights, flight numbers, DESTINATIONS, times and aircraft served on the route. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirKoryoTU-204 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One user removed these flights from the articles and NWA.com still show the flights still operating but I have restored them. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on it! Jasepl (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We got it fixed already. The user seemed to have found the flights on Flightaware already as DAL754/DAL782 and realized his mistake beacuse he thought the flight did not carry the DL code. But I would keep an eye just in case others continue to remove it. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "familarise myself?"ZHoover123 05:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHoover123 (talk • contribs)
No I don't need English language lessons but thanks! Listen, everytime I write something on Wikipedia, I ALWAYS use four ~'s but I don't know why it always proceeds as unsigned? ZHoover123 05:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
One user made this weird change to Delta at SGN. He added LAX as a destination but DL has no traffic rights from SGN to NRT without passenger originating to/from the US and it is DL302 SGN-NRT-LAX. However, I could not book SGN-NRT on NWA.com or on Delta.com; made a hidden note for it. But however, the flight has a plane change at Narita. Can you try and fix the hidden note or some sort or should we add Ho Chi Minh City as a destination (and also remove it from NRT page) for LAX since DL has no such traffic rights from NRT and SGN? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second part of your explanation is best, that we list LAX as a destination from SGN (on an exceptional basis, because we can't just leave out Delta altogether). We should also remove SGN from the Narita dest list. Jasepl (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tafa Air. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. kedadial 08:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jasepl. You have new messages at Kedadi's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi there, I have checked the GDS and can only confirm that Dar Es Salaam, Kuala Lumpur, Lahore and Islamabad are being launched as they are bookable. Should we put airlineroute's source [1]in temporarily to avoid this accurate information being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferminio (talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are re-re-reverting. But this edit-warring is not a solution either. Do you have any idea how to solve this problem? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I only reverted the Thompson flights to Irish airports, because these are not scheduled charters, nor can one buy simply a seat on the flight. I explained that in the edit summary too. And gave Kavs (who's been a major headache in the past as well) a 3RR warning. I think the best way forward is to wait for others to contribute at the project talk page, and also suggest in the discussion that only scheduled charters (where one can buy only a seat instead of the whole package) should be listed. Let's make that part of the guidelines, after discussing with others. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lies book now at www.firstchoiceairways.co.uk bookable flights from Dublin, Cork, Shannon etc.. i will continue edit war as you have violated wikipedia policy. --Kavs8(talk ·contribs) 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jasepl, i see that you joined the report on this edit war. I dare say that I am not familiar with such a report, especially I do not know which references for Kavs8's behavior to give. Can you assist me? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, that link Kavs8 keeps touting as proof of the claim does show that a handful of flights are indeed bookable from Dublin and Cork. I checked out a couple and each one clearly stated “Operated by Monarch Airlines" or "Operated by Iberworld". And M-O-N-A-R-C-H does not equal T-H-O-M-P-S-O-N! Jasepl (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be picky, but It's spelt Thomson :) Sorry. By the way. I agree with Jasepl. Zaps93 (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is from albania, clearly will be reverting anything he wants, as north kosovo, be careful he is not allowed to, also check his ip, previously suspended many times no doubt, but his reverts make no sense, escpet silly explanations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajdada (talk • contribs) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You created my user page without my knowledge[edit]
I noticed you created my user page without my knowledge. Do a Check User first and then accuse. i am complaining in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents of your habits of falsely accusing other new users as sock puppets. (Rhp26 (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
While I don't echo what Wardark said here, I do sort of agree that you shouldn't continue to accuse of sockpuppetry if you aren't going to take it to SPI. If you do take it to SPI, please let me know. tedder (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just put that tag on there. And will take it up. Trust me, it will pass the quacks-like-a-duck test with flying colours (just like before). Thanks for the heads up, Jasepl (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick question here, over the past couple of months I have noticed that a majority of the airport pages went from having divided airlines and destinations to a single table format. May I ask you why you changed all of these to that format? I would like to input that I dislike this new format as it's harder to read when it's not spread out. Also if your trying to find airlines that are in the same terminal it is now a pain to look through and find those. If you are like me who is into Flight Simulator the old format (divided by terminals) was very nice as it was easy to read and made life easier. I am not bashing you so please do not take this the wrong way, I am just trying to figure out why all of this was changed. --BTVB6Flyer (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. basically, the multiple table format was used before the code was developed which allowed for listing airlines, destinations and terminals (if needed) in a single column, in a standard format. There is a discussion at WP:Airports / WP:Airlines where it was determined that the single table way is what will be followed across airport articles. It might be in the talk archives of those articles by now. I'll try to look for it as well. Jasepl (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PIT-DTW; MSP-DTW on DL mainline at Pittsburgh International Airport[edit]
User keeps on insisting that these flights will continue on DL mainline but their schedules no longer show these flights after April 5 (only show Delta Connection flights beyond April). Can you take a look? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean PIT-DTW and MSP-DTW. I see the same thing you do in the schedules: Delta Connection only.
Yep, those routes. However, i got an attack from an IP directed to me "fuck off snoozlepet bcamp is right" in the edit history. I gave him a warning for it. DL mainline flies PIT-MSP but not MSP-PIT but DL mainline does not fly PIT-DTW and vice versa. I don't know where are they finding this information. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they know something that Delta don't?! Or maybe they found out the secret from the "Planning Department" like User:Dimitree has been claiming for an Aeroflot route? Jasepl (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. He needs to provide a source to an ACTUAL airline press release, if he says "Aeroflot Planning Department" he needs to provide a link to the ACTUAL department. If the flights are loaded into schedules and bookable for that date, then it stays. If their website doesn't even mention the destination, then it needs to be removed. The page is currently protected so I would take this to the article's talk page. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to provide a source to an ACTUAL airline press release, bcoz this flight (to Gelendzhik) is supposed to be operated only after official certification of Gelendzhik Airport that is undergoing this procedure now. First flight is scheduled for 31st May as I was told by the Deputy Director of Aeroflot NETWORK (be attentive, please!) Planning Department (not Aeroflot PLANNING Department as defigurates Jasepl). Moreover, just have a look at any other similar date of an initial flight of any aircompany, you will not find such a VALID source. Or, please, find it and show me.
First of all, I'm not against what you do but somethings are better off being handled by them admins. Per WP:BEANS, I have removed all the previous warnings and re-tagged the IP on his talk page. The rest is up to the Sysop to block him, as we all know that the IP has been very naughty, right? Sometimes, it is best to ignore him after reverting his nonsensical edit, that way we deny him the recognition or attention that he might be craving for, agree? Other than that, no harm done... cheers~! --Dave♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 19:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I only re-inserted today's note. All the other warnings I had left in the past are best removed (as you have done). Thanks Jasepl (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too busy at the moment. I suggest you mobilize those at WP:AIRPORT and WP:AIRLINE. Bring it up there. HkCaGu (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to burst your bubble, but JQ (not 3K) does fly between SIN and DPS, continuing onto Australia. Try a search on Jetstar's site for SIN-DPS-SIN on eg. Feb 26 and Mar 26. Followups to Talk:Singapore Changi Airport, please. Jpatokal (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be rude but- Where is this "established format" you speak of when it comes to start and end dates? It means the same, I don't really see why it must be begins only. Remember, I am not trying to be rude; just curious. RokinRyan
Well...I did some digging and saw the format you were talking about. RokinRyan
Sorry about the delayed reply; it's here. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you removed IAD-ACC-LOS from the IAD page because it's not bookable but I'm almost 100% positive that it was never bookable to begin with. They are still waiting for gov't approval apparently so I'm not sure it should be taken off. UA still lists it as a new route:
It should've been listed since the source came from UA itself. I think we should wait a month or two to see if it is bookable. If not, it can be removed. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-I put it back on the page. I agree we should wait until UA announces it won't be starting on May 2.
On the AirTran Airways page someone is trying to switch the hubs and focus cities names to say the city name instead of the airport name! PLEASE BACK ME UP THAT IT SHOULD SAY THE AIRPORT NAME AND NOT THE CITY!!! Insideairtran
For your kind info Air India operates a scheduled flight AI621 to Mumbai from Bangalore. I have flown in this very flight, so that is why I made the change. If u don't believe go to the Air India website itself. I also have a photo of an Air India flight at the Bangalore Airport. I took this photo when I was travelling to Hyderabad. SO sir kindly update yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek191288 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Air India still flies to Bangalore. I even have the picture of an Air India flight scheduled to depart to mumbai at the Bangalore Airport. CHeck the Air India website itself. Try booking a flight from Bangalore to Mumbai or Singapore. If the particular flight is operated be Indian Airlines, then the code for the flight will be AI 9***. for example AI 9110 is IC 110, a flight operated by Indian Airlines with a code share agreement with Air India . But AI 621/ 620 are not operated by Indian Airlines and so is AI 444 / 445 Bangalore-Singapore-Bangalore. Also check the Bengaluru International Airport website if u are not clear. Bangalore is a destination of the AIR INDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek191288 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth makes you think that Air India still does not fly to Bangalore. First of all Indian Airlines and Air India have merged in 2007. An artice on wikipedia also confirms that. So kindly update yourself. Even in the Indian media, any Indian Airlines flight is referrd to as an Air India flight, though it is a subsidiary of Air India, just like Jet Lite being a subsidiary of Jet Airways and operating under a different IATA code. Now, there are two destinations that AIr India flies from Bangalore - Mumbai and Singapore. Here are the links: http://www.bengaluruairport.com/bial_docs/docs/Domesticdeparture.pdf (for Bangalore - Mumbai AI 621) and
http://www.bengaluruairport.com/bial_docs/docs/InternationalDep.pdf (for Bangalore - Singapore AI444). Now even if Air India and Indian Airlines have not merged, is any airlin that stupid to continue using the livery of the airline it has taken an aircraft on lease. So don't act stupid. I wonder what you think of yourself. GO UPDATE YOURSELF. You have no idea about Indian airports, so stop thinking about them, that would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A leo19 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As already explained to you a number of times (here and here): Air India do NOT fly to Bangalore. And the two airlines have NOT merged. Nor is Indian Airlines a subsidiary of Air India.
Additionally, note that additions to other users' talk pages go at the bottom of the page, in a new section; not at the top or somewhere in between. You also need to sign your edits.
Also, switching from one user name to another does not make you right. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are a total asshole who just dictates terms on other users. There are so many users who agree that YES AIR INDIA has started flying to Bangalore. Indian Airlines is moreover now called Air India IC code flights. So fucking get lost u asshole. Even giving references is of no use because you just want to put things that u think is right even if it is wrong. I'm no fool to edit and include an airline for no reason. Did you fucking understand that???? U say that Indian Airlines and Air India haven't merged??? Who the fuck told u so. An article in wikipedia itself tells that they have merged. If u fuckin don't believe go and ask the civil aviation ministry of India. Moreover a few weeks ago, hte opposition parties in India staged a protest regarding the merger of Indian Airlines into Air India and demanded they be demerged. DO u even have a wee bit of knowledge about all this. Just go to hell u good for nothing asshole.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek191288 (talk • contribs) .
Haha! Someone's certainly quacking, but I don't think its the one you suspect. It is likely this user. Thanks for the lookout! Jasepl (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Facts?? Bullshit.. You get ur damn facts right first u asshole...
What happened why didn't u reply?? Got scared after u read the articles?? Facts r facts Mr.. N u r just acting like a dictator here.. U just wanna dictate your terms to people even if they r right.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek191288 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now here. There's one more reference from the website of Air India itself. It shows the destinations of Air India along with Air India IC (Indian Airlines) code flight destinations. Singapore is not mentioned as a code share destination between Air India and Indian Airlines. SO it's quite obvious that the flight out of Bangalore to Sinagpore is an Air India flight and not an Indian Airlines flight. Take a good look of this. Don't be afraid!!! :P http://home.airindia.in/SBCMS/Webpages/International--Where-we-fly.aspx?MID=26—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek191288 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Shouldn't Beijing be removed from the Prospective Destinations since PEK is already listed as a destination under PRC? Snoozlepet (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If already a current destination, then yes, it should go! Jasepl (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to my recent edit of Edinburgh Airport. Jet2.com announced a new route to Palma de Mallorca which starts on june 26. My source is the press relase on the Jet2.com website clearly states this. It is also availible to book from June 26. If there was no source why did you not remove it from Edinburgh Airport page ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie2k9 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Then how about citing that source at the time of your edit, instead of on my talk page? It serves no purpose here. Jasepl (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Airlines and destinations are not encyclopedic on their own--they are there to show what the airports are like. The Island Hopper does not deserve an article of its own, nor is it notable in Continental's. However, the Island Hopper is critically notable and relevant for small airports like these. Using standard templates only for these airports is like many of those Arizona towns which describe demographic details (i.e. 0.07% Asian) but forgetting to mention it's part of some Indian Reservation (which isn't necessarily contained in the Census data). Frequencies are definitely not supposed to be in the table, and definitely not notable for one route in a busy airport, but, again, for these small and simple airports, is critically encyclopedic. Simply putting six destinations in a table without explaining the route can also be misleading. I hope you understand the reality and the perspective. HkCaGu (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not reverts those last edit. If you can give those better explanations in edit summary, I can dealt with which text to improving. Sometimes, I will try to ask my friends or roommates for the proofreads help. THanks. --B767-500 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your update to the terminal names (from INTL & MMA2 to 1 & 2) are incorrect. Those are not the correct terminal names. It would be no different than someone changing the terminal names to Terminal A & B. It is still incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.225.107 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Several users continue to add ORD as a destination to Pakistan International Airlines. However, ORD is not loaded into PIA's res systems nor PIA have not announced it (Chicago is not even listed as a destination). I am not sure that they are resuming ORD. I think probably they are using airlineroute.net since that website mentions that PIA is reusming ORD from June 2010. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jasepl, if you watch after Aeroflot destinations, please do not allow others to vandalise the article. I've already corrected the list (as per 1992-2009 Aeroflot Network) and reverted the article to a stable version. Thank you. --Dimitree (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why is because it is clearly marked as the viewpoint/opinion of Robyn Meredith of Forbes. If someone had written "the building needed a paint job" without anything else, yes, it would be POV. By saying that Robyn Meredith of Forbes said that the building needed a new paint job, then it is not POV and totally acceptable for Wikipedia to post because it is marked as her opinion and not as some "fact" that Wikipedia is saying.
Because Robyn Meredith wrote it in Forbes, her viewpoint is totally acceptable for WP to publish. If there are other viewpoints about the building published in reliable sources, then they can be included as well. If there aren't any others, then Meredith's opinion stands alone, and it is okay for Wikipedia to post it alone.
Even if there was a problem with those sentences, the blanket removal of the entire paragraph doesn't make sense. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think other editor User:WhisperToMe is corrects. Because of he found those good source (Forbes) and reporter can always have those slightly POV . Thanks.--B767-500 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is PIA really flying to Guangzhou? It was added here to Pakistan International Airlines destinations but I have removed it. The reference goes to PIA schedules on their website, which do not list Guangzhou as a destination. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jasepl, VRG Linhas Aéreas, the operator of the brand Gol Airlines, purchased some years ago the brand Varig (only the brand and some rights, not the assets). The original Varig is now known as Flex Linhas Aéreas. The present name Varig, or "new" Varig refers to a completely new airline started in 2005 and which is now owned by VRG Linhas Aéreas, the same owner of Gol Linhas Aéras. Due to the intricacies of the bunkruptcy imbroglio, there is a lot of confusion between both. The main difference between Gol and "new" Varig is that Gol operates all-economy flights and Varig operates 737-700 with business and economy class, which are used on longer-haul (presently Caracas and Bogotá) and holiday destinations (presently Aruba, Curaçao and Punta Cana flights). Whenever nowadays you see a plane with the name Varig, it is the "new" Varig. I have updated the wiki article of Flex ("old" Varig) but I still have not had time to update the wiki article of Varig ("old Varig") or Gol a.k.a. VRG Linhas Aéreas, explaining the complicated trading transactions. BRGDS, (Brunoptsem (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks Bruno. that clears it up! Jasepl (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Is there some guideline you are following? You have removed fleet route/haul from many articles. I, personally, find that information useful and notable. Please explain. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there is. Available at WP:Airlines. Thanks, !!!!
You must be mistaken. There is nothing on that page that provides guidelines. I also looked here and here and here. I'm just not seeing it. Could you please direct me to the appropriate page? Thanks very much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed my last message. Again, could you please direct me to the appropriate page. Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i did miss your message (got too many whilst I was away the last couple of days). I'll look for the guideline and post it back here when I have it. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You never got back to me so I just went ahead and removed the edits. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you undo the correct list of destinations in Alicante airport?
Please, check it before you do it. All I wrote is correct. You can see it by yourself.
Kind regards. --Dr RdL (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Couple of reasons: 1. A valid source is needed for additions/deletions in the destination tables, and, 2. we do not mention start or end dates for recurring seasonal services. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jasepl again. Doesn't matter, if you don't put the restart dates, I don't do it -but there were some seasonal flights with the restart date before-. About valid sources, people was adding new destinations without a valid source -until today-. Anyway, if you want I put all the links for air companies that they work currently... Kind regards. --Dr RdL (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No no, you don't need to add references for all existing services, just for changes (ie: new flights or permanently ending flights). Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My edit which you basically reverted was replaced with old information (e.g SriLankan has a fleet of 12 aicraft NOT 14 aircraft as claimed in your revision and has got a new uniform as I posted earlier). All this information can be found with a quick Google search. In any case links and references were provided so feel free to have a look and verify the information yourself. Just letting you know about this situation, so feel free to either leave it as is or update the information again!
Thanks and Kind Regards
Zzzz2 (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering why you undid revision 335756159 and what you mean by "mist" in "we don't mist times / durations / prices etc?" I made the changes because as I was reading the article, I thought people might like to know more about the rail service in general without having to navigate to another article. I also made some clarifying changes to the first paragraph that DIDN'T contain any of the offending information, and it, too, was removed with your change. I'm not the least bit offended but want to know (a) why it was removed, (b) why you chose to "undo" the entire block of changes instead of just some of them (were they all a problem), and (c) how editors like you about edits like the ones I made -- as your changes were made very quickly after mine (this is more wiki-curiosity). Thanks.
What the hell has happened? Why are people proposing those tables? They are terrible! They look a mess, are a complete nonsense to even sort out/edit. What's your opinions? Zaps93 (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh! I don't like either.... Let's see what happens. Jasepl (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that may be right but why not remove (Schönefeld) from Berlin, (South-Charleroi} from Brussels, (Prestwick) from Glasgow, (Rygge and Trop) from Oslo, (Paris) from Beauvais, (Ciampino) from Rome, (Skavsta) from Stockholm, (South) fom Tenerife and (Treviso) from Venice. So I will restore Frankfurt Hahn once again. Please remove the others with Frankfurt as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie2k9 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is because those cities have more than one airport serving them. If we only write Berlin, then no one will know if it is Schönefeld, Tegel or Tempelhof. In the case of Frankfurt, there is only one airport. Jasepl (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in, but if we list Beauvais-Tillé Airport as Paris-Beauvais, even though it's miles away from Paris, then under the same logic shouldn't we use Frankfurt-Hahn, particularly as it is the official name of the airport? --Footyfanatic3000(talk ·contribs) 11:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester, Alicante, Luton and Gatwick Airports[edit]
Hi
Why did you delete the pictures on Manchester, Alicante, Luton and Gatwick airports. The reason i added them is because i am trying to make the pages more attractive, similar to Malaga, Lanzarote and Palma de Mallorca airports. Also i don't like the tables being separated to scheduled and charter destiations as more than one table doesn't seem right.
Hi MKY661, as far as I'm aware it's standard practice to have a seperate table for charter flights and scheduled. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I make mistake (edit war and talk page message)[edit]
I am back! Sorry about poor behaviors, which am realizes were mistakes. I try to make good edits. --B767-500 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello :) I still keep on changing the name in English of Zurich Airport and I don't understand why you keep the umlaut in English. I think you missed my last comment on why I changed it. :) best regards Ngagnebin (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit surprised that you made a global change to the name "Qantas". The airline's trading name, as well as more colloquial usage, is "Qantas", not "Qantas Airways". The term "Qantas Airways Limited" is however used as Qantas business name.
But if you want a start a new precedent, could you please:
change all references from "Qantas" and "Qantas Airways" to "Qantas Airways Limited", and
likewise change all airline names from their colloquial to their business names (or legal names).
Alternatively you may wish to explain why Qantas is different and should be treated differently, or to save a lot of time and avoid inconsistencies, you might judge the wisest option would be to revert all the references back to "Qantas" Kransky (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Can you keep an eye out on Malpensa Airport since people keep on adding LH Italia as a hub? I had to remove it about 3 or 4 times saying that "Lufthansa Italia" is not an airline. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please review the article 'Vietnam Airlines'[edit]
Hello Jasepl,
I have just editted the article Vietnam Airlines and because I have put it up for peer review, could you please have a look at it? And also, please ask some edittors who are aviation fans that you know, to give the article a look and leave some comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Vietnam Airlines/archive1.
Thanks Sp33dyphil 01:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jasepl, long time no see. Where are you? Hope all's well. Best regards, Zaps93 (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Jaspel why are you changing the Vizag Airport route schedules. Pune is added with connection via Hyderabad. If you want can visit www.flykingfisher.com and go the schedules operated by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsun.ca (talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're back sir? Anyways I'm not here to start a fight. I would like to ask you why you have changed the names of the following cities in the destination list: Thiruvananthapuram, Kochi, Kozhikode. The wikipedia articles for these cities are known by those names, so please let the same remain.
Oops! My mistake.Jasepl (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9W to AMD was resumed long ago. Please check the schedules properly before making these edits. Thank You and nice to see you back. ---Abhishek191288 (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From where? Jasepl (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tafa Air. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. kedadial 08:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
