User talk:Jetstreamer/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Christmas

Thanks, Jetstreamer! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Navidad

Brunoptsem (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dear Jetstreamer, thanks for your kind wishes and for another year of wikipartnership. Let's keep in touch in 2013! Un gran abrazo, Bruno (Brunoptsem (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC))

How To Have Someone Blocked From Editing A Page

Hi Jetstreamer.

I need to have someone blocked from editing a page. A user by the name of DONALDderosa keeps removing information on the Allegiant Air page under the fleet section. The last sentence of the last paragraph on that page keeps getting removed when I clearly added a reference and removes it for no apparent reason. I need some help administrating this page. I need protection before this gets out of hand.--Triple A (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Protection is intended for preventing anonymous users to edit a page, but it won't work for registered users. The only protection that will work is full protection, which will force the users engaged in an edit war to discuss the issues at the article's talk page. If the edits in question are vandalism, you may report the user here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok so now that same person is adding junk to my talk page that I do not want to have. Everytime I keep removing it, he keeps readding it. What do I do for that? Can you report them for me, or can you warn them to stop doing that?--Triple A (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The page is now fully protected, so you can discuss the differences in your edits at the article's talk page. The other user is accusing you of vandalism, but your edits are not vandalism at all. You just have a dispute regarding content (not so long ago you and me also had them). The best way to solve this is to reach consensus.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks alot Jetstreamer! I really appreciate it. I don't that user will be bothering me again! Happy holidays!--Triple A (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

@Aerospace, There is a discussion started at Talk:Allegiant Air regarding the full protection. Just a reminder....When discussing, be civil to one another and no personal attacks to one another. Happy Holidays! Snoozlepet (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turkish Airlines destinations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Corruption in Rafic Hariri article

I notice that you undid my edit removing the section concerning Rafic Hariri and corruption. But I did so becuase the cited sources in no way supported the paragraf. In fact, they contradict it! The Independent article said that "No one is accusing Mr Hariri of anything... the Prime Minister was so rich that nobody stood a chance of bribing him". The Nation article does critisize Hariri, but does not level the accusations in the paragraph.

That's why I removed it. It's compleltly unsourced, and increadibly not NPOV. Do you now think I should remove it again?81.129.211.200 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do not remove anything, just try to find suitable sources to correct the things you mention, as well as to give due weight to the section.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Ethiopian Airlines

Hello, Jetstreamer. You have new messages at Janweh64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No disturbance at all. All I did is to follow WP:VERIFY and WP:VNT.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Kenya Airways planned acquisition of Boeing 77W.

Your recent edit of the Kenya Airways fleet page is quite amusing & misguided. In 2011, KQ signed an agreement to acquire two 77W's through a 12 year leasing deal with GECAS. The first aircraft will be delivered in October of 2013 and the second in the 1st quarter of 2014. In April of 2012 when KQ signed the mega deal with GE to acquire 19 engines for the 9 787's GE engines, the CEO also mentioned the two leased 77W's which will also be powered by GE engines. Search: "Kenya Airways in $380 million deal for Dreamliner's engines" on YouTube and hear the KQ CEO talk about the two 77W's.

The latest press release (2012) which you quoted which states Kenya Airways has one 773 on order is the one being financed and to be fully owned by KQ through Afreximbank after the recent cash call. In actuality, KQ has THREE 77W's on order. The reason why all the orders are not in a composite press release is because the leasing of the GECAS aircraft is done through an offshore leasing company in a Tax haven region. The current four 772's were acquired in the same manner.

I wont change your edit, but I'll be back in October when the first of the two leased aircrafts are delivered and you can explain how a 773 order was fulfilled in less than a year.

Happy New Year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magellanmax (talk • contribs) 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ryanair services to Manchester Airport

Thanks for your prompt reply

I have been updating the Manchester Airport Page for some 7 hours today making sure all linked articles return to the Manchester Airport home page correctly and removing many broken links and cancelled routes.

I have now added the references and short note - Initially as a seasonal flight showing in the Ryanair booking engine. It may be year round but don't know at the moment.

Regards

Rutankrd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutankrd (talk • contribs) 22:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a third-party source...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Link to Manchester Airports own new services page

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/NewRoutes

Regards

rutankrd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutankrd (talk • contribs) 23:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Added a third-party source. Despite it does not provide a firm date, it's better than nothing.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Official websites

Hi! About this edit of West Caribbean Airways that page was an archive of the page of the company official website. The URL wca.com.co was that of West Caribbean WhisperToMe (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's evident that it was not my best day when I made that edit. The reference you reinstated is perfectly valid. My apologies.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted :) - Happy editing! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Monarch Airlines routes from Larnaca International Airport and Faro Airport

Id like to advise I have re-added Monarch Airlines routes that are currently operated from this airport, I don't understand to why you have removed them as these routes are 100% in operation and can be found selling on monarch.co.uk.

I have also re done my revision for the route Leeds Bradford Airport to Faro which is a route that will begin and currently being sold on monarch.co.uk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.95.15 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hello you keep removing my edits when in fact I am correct in my edits, the routes will be operating and can be seen on <monarch.co.uk> please check out the routes and allow my changes to be made to ensure Wikipedia is kept up to date and 100% correct and reliable.

Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.95.15 (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you say, but that's not the way Wikipedia works. See WP:VERIFY and WP:IC.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What should I do then? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.95.15 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Either provide a source with any claim you add or do not add anything at all.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

My source is Monarch.co.uk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.95.15 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I give up, ha thanks anyhows, however you will see the route added within the next couple of months! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.95.15 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cairo International Airport

People continue to add airlineroute.net as a source for Korean Air but that source cannot be used as it is not considered reliable. Thanks! 71.91.69.220 (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No idea who is behind this IP but he/she added more or less the same thing on my talk page including a threat against me. The discussion about airlineroutes.net continues on WikiProject_Airports. Maybe you'd like to contribute there as well. JochenvW (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

PLUNA

I've replied at Talk:PLUNA. --RFBailey (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul Ataturk Images

That is normal to repeat images of Turkish airlines aircrafts. In wiki commons category of airport is upload only 30/35 photos and 10/15 of them are of Turkish airlines. And I think it is nice to have pictures on Airlines and destinations category.

Wikipedia is not a collection of fancy images.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

P.D.: Newest thread goes at the bottom. Also, you should sign your posts, like I do --->--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Air Algérie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air Mali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Move request

Hello. Can you please move my recently-created article Air Algérie Cargo Flight 2208 to Air Algérie Flight 2208. I cannot do it on my own because the latter page already exists, yet it's a redirect. Moreover, I made a mistake when moving the article from my sandbox, and mistakenly created User:Air Algérie Flight 2208. Can you please delete it as well?. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Y done MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopian Airlines Referencing Questions

Hello Jetstreamer.

Sorry to bother you about Ethiopian Airlines again. I was wondering about a couple references that would be deemed acceptable, or unreliable to you. 1. I was looking on this website and say they have 9 Bombardier Q400s in the fleet and that the rest have been delivered to ASKY Airlines. So I was thinking that you should remove the order of Q400s that still appears under order. 2. I found an article stating ET's intentions to operate two of their Boeing 777-300ERs to both D.C, and Guangzhou. I looked for several articles seeing if ET ordered, or leased two Boeing 777-300ERs, but couldn't find any but the one listed above. 3. I have been hearing ET will be starting service to Madrid, Sao Paulo, and Rio de Janerio. I have found some references, but would like to see if you would see these as a reliable source to you.

• • Reference saying ET will operate to Brazil
  • Reference saying ET will operate to Madrid
  • Another reference stating ET will operate to Madrid

--Triple A (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the sources above are not reliable ones.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

About my additions on Turkish Airlines Destinations page

Hello,

Just after I added Tallinn and Vilnius and revised Kuala Lumpur lines, I tried to add the references, but I was unable to do so. For some reason, I can see only limited number of references (until the one about Entebbe) and I could not add the new ones.

My references were http://airlineroute.net/2013/01/18/tk-dackul-jun13/ and http://www.airporthaber.com/havacilik-haberleri/thyden-baskentler-atagi.html by the way.

Regards, Engin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.193.30 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding references

Hello again Jetstreamer,

I tried to add references many times on Turkish Airlines Destinations page, but cannot do so.

This is the official announcement regarding the initiation of Libreville service on January 31, 2013: http://www.turkishairlines.com/tr-tr/kurumsal/haberler/17318/yeni-ucuslarimiz-libreville

There is no official announcement yet, but a number of websites contain the following news. Kuala Lumpur service resumes on April 25, 2013: http://airlineroute.net/2013/01/18/tk-dackul-jun13/ Tallinn and Vilnius service begins on June 11, 2013: http://airlineroute.net/2013/01/18/tk-tllvno-jun13/

I cannot add these links to the References part.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.193.30 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The service to Libreville has already been added by another editor. Regarding the other two, the references you privide aro not considered reliable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Airlines in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Airlines for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Mariscal Sucre International Airport

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Mariscal Sucre International Airport .

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Mariscal Sucre International Airport or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been a blatant violation of WP:VERIFY, which is a policy. I thought policies were there to be followed.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't edit war over it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:AR New Image 737-700.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AR New Image 737-700.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC} 04:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Vienna International Airport. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Toddst1 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jetstreamer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is just surprising. I suspect I've been blocked by the admin above because I've reported an IP user that has been acting in bad faith, ignoring all the messages left in their talk page, and the one that gets a block is me. Apart from that, I've never broken WP:3RR. Can you please give me a resonable explanation? Of course, I intend my block to be thoroughly reconsidered. As per my contributions, you can see that I've never acted in bad faith. How does this continue? Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 1:23 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

This block should not be surprising: an appropriate warning was provided. Having reviewed the series of edits, it is clear that the block - however unfortunate it may be - was a temporary fix, as per blocking policy. There is no doubt that you edit this project in good faith, however, that does not absolve anyone from following dispute resolution processes instead of breaking key policies. Moreover, the guide to appealing blocks is quite clear that in order to be unblocked, the editor must show understanding of why they are blocked. Nowhere in this request nor in the discussion below is any such understanding apparent. Instead, there's nothing but argument and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT even when the rules and policies have been laid out clearly. As such, the block is valid, but there's nothing GAB-compliant about the request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In regard to the matter above, can an administrator block a user preemptively? If so, what about WP:AGF? I'm deeply concerned about this situation.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussing with blocking admin; I'll get back to you ASAP. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jetstreamer. After hearing Toddst1's explanation, I believe I understand the reasoning behind the block. He warned you above about edit warring with the IP, and explained that repeatedly reverting unverified information still constitutes edit warring. The continuation of your feud with the IP editor, despite this warning, is the underlying reason for the block.

Had you reported the IP straight away without reverting, this wouldn't be an issue, but except in cases of clear-cut vandalism (which this wasn't), repeated reversion of unconstructive edits is a violation of the EW policy. I don't for a moment argue that the IP's information should have been kept, merely that you should not have gone about it in the manner you did.

This is an extremely close call, and I must confess I'm rather on the fence with it. As such, I've decided not to lift the block; but rather than declining it outright I've re-opened the template so that another admin can offer their thoughts and unblock if necessary. I'm sorry that this obviously isn't the result you wanted, but I can't honestly call it a bad block given the circumstances. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• You already have an unblock request open - please stop adding helpme templates, as reviewers will automatically review ALL pertinent information (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The block has just expired. I put the {{admin!}} template because the only admin that responded did not close the matter.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your time. Let me tell you that I'm not doing this because I'm blindly looking for an unblock, but because I believe the decision of the blocking administrator was misjudged. The episode at Vienna International Airport was not properly an edit war, as the IP user had already been warned by other users regarding their mass edits on other airport articles, and should at least be considered a disruptive practice. The proof of this is that the administrator that blocked me also blocked the IP. I'm well aware of the policies and guidelines regarding this matter. I'm again placing the {{admin!}} for another opinion. Honestly, I believe users that are not administrators but act in good faith, making huge contributions with the goal of improving this enciclopedia (I'm one of them) are in a clear disadvantage when situations like this one arise. Probably, the block will expire before I get a positive response. This is a bitter situation for me, but feel that also goes in detriment of the project, mostly given that I'm on holidays this month and it's my time for contributing most. Sincerely, my feeling about this is that I've been punished for a situation I did not create. Thanks again.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment from blocking admin: Perhaps you should read the wikipedia page on WP:EW. It doesn't appear that you understand it.

I'm also concerned about your assertion that the IP you were edit warring with, 203.160.61.186 (talk · contribs), was acting in bad faith. It's clear that the editor was adding unsourced info and edit warring as well, but I find it more than a stretch to say it is bad-faith editing. If I had any evidence of bad-faith editing, that IP would be blocked for a year or longer given the recent block. Toddst1 (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've read WP:EW, actually, and that page also mentions WP:3RR, which I did not break. Given that you mentioned bullying, I don't think it's appropriate to recall WP:BULLY here, as I haven't threaten the IP in any way, and all I left at their talk page was a WP:ES-related notice, while warnings referring to vandalism/disruptive editing came from User:HkCaGu. Look, it's not my intention to start an argument with you. We can discuss the matter anytime you want, but your vision of the block is against mines and, as I said above, you're an administrator and I'm not. I did not act in bad faith neither in this case nor in any other one. The positive side of this discussion is that you're giving the point of view you did not provide at first, but let me tell you that I do not share your vision of WP:EW for this particular case.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If I thought you understood how you were edit warring and told me it wouldn't happen again, I'd unblock you, but that's not the case. It's not my vision of EW, it's basic policy and you clearly don't understand it. Maybe you should re-read what I explained above:

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

Toddst1 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've read it over and over, and it says ″can″, not ″must″ or ″should″. This is a matter of interpretation depending on the acting administrator, and you're taking the hardest side of it. There's at least another administrator that does not openly share your thoughts, as per above. By the way, why did you remove the {{admin!}} request?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've marked your admin help request as helped - you don't use both an admin help template and and {{unblock}} template together. Someone will look at your unblock request. Toddst1 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy that says someone should be blocked' for violating it. They say may be blocked.

As I said to Yunshui another admin may unblock you, but I think anyone who looks at this will see that you think you're above the restriction on edit warring. You have ignored the warning and declared that it doesn't apply to your actions. It is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".

Your block is still open for review. Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you're used to get unblock reasons like ″The block does not apply to me″ or similar. Believe me, it's not the case here. I'm just trying to convince both you or any other administrator that you've been too hard in interpreting WP:EW. Unfortunaletely, I'm afraid the block will expire without sheding light into the core of the discussion.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, you shouldn't think that nobody besides Yunshui has seen this. There are very few entries at WP:RFU, so it is far more likely that it has been seen by quite a few admins who have chosen not to act on this. That frequently happens when there is a lengthy discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit discouraging, as my unblock only depends upon your decision.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it depends on me at all. Toddst1 (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe it does, as your interpretation of the blocking policy is different than mine. I don't think my reversion severely disrupted the project. As I said, the only difference between my point of view and yours is that I don't have the ability to block users.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It was disruptive, though. You may not have felt that it was, but edit-warring is very harmful, even if done with good intentions. Please understand that the only way that Wikipedia can work, with anonymous volunteers (even people who register are anonymous) is for people to collaborate peacefully. When people revert others' edits repeatedly, regardless of which of you is correct, you completely disrupt that collaboration. My personal policy (what I follow, not what anyone else has to follow) is that if I see something that should be undone I do it once, with an explanation in my edit summary. If the person reinserts the edit, I may or may not revert a second time. If I do revert a second time it is always with a request to discuss things on the talk page. Usually, though, I'll just leave them a message, either on the talk page of the article or their own user talk page. I'll explain why I reverted them the first time and ask them to explain why they disagree. If they won't discuss matters, that's when you need to use dispute resolution to settle it. But edit-warring is never the way to resolve a problem. -- Atama頭 00:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nationair Crew References

I saw your entry on the Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 history log, and wanted to let you know that I found the proper references regarding the names of the flight crew members. One reference is from the Internet Movie Database entry about the episode of the 'Mayday' TV series Under Pressure. The other is from a web site dealing with the history of Nationair. The names of William Allan and Kent Davidge can be found on the IMDB page, while Victor Fehr's name is on the Nationair history page. I hope this helps. And003 (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've marked one of the sources you added as potentially unreliable, as per WP:USERG.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You need not worry about the reliability of this source. This web site was established by a man named Dale Humphrey, a former Nationair employee worked alongside those who perished on the DC-8 carrying Nigeria Airways Flight 2120. Humphrey also participated in the making of the Mayday episode entitled "Under Pressure", which details the story behind the crash. His name can be found in the episode's closing credits. If this helps, let me know. And003 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Still not sure about the reliability of the source, but if you believe it is, you can remove the {{rs}} tag I've placed there.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to be sure, contact Dale Humphrey at dale@gol.com. He can give you more information about his site. And003 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

January 2013 - Part II

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Ethiopian Airlines. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. All the information you have removed has been added again, as per I have thoroughly researched everything and provided references. If this continues, I will take evasive action and report you to the administrator and have you blocked again. This is your first and last official warning.--KevinMichaelBradley1996 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My edits are not vandalism, that's a serious accusation. You removed all the edits I've made to the page, not just the one regarding the fleet. Do reinstate the edits not related to the fleet, and we may discuss the fleet stuff. By the way, do report me if you're ready for what comes right after that.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Also to clarify, User:AerospaceAirAviation is a friend of mine! I always edit as User:KevinMichaelBradley1996. What makes you think I am editing as both? Get your facts straight before consulting me about it! Also, if saying "your edits appear to be vandalism" is a serious accusation, why do you say that to so many users, including User:AerospaceAirAviation back in August?--KevinMichaelBradley1996 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jetstreamer has been vandalizing my edits as well. I second the need for administrator intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:BC86:1:222:19FF:FEF3:BC0A (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm falsely being accused of vandalism. Can anyone please intervene here? Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You certainly didnt do anything wrong on the Turkish article, I have left a note on the project page asking 2001 to delete his personal attack. Give me time and I will have a look at the Ethiopian edits. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No evidence that you vandalised the Ethiopian Airlines page, it is clearly just a content dispute although I did see that User:KevinMichaelBradley1996 did remove some of the improvements you made like removing conversion templates, I will have a word. I would suggest that any issues are raised on the article talk page to get consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice job

Good call on identifying User talk:KevinMichaelBradley1996‎‎ (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet. Let me know if there are continuing problems with the master others show up. I've identified an ipsock of that editor that you've also had interaction with. Toddst1 (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually suspected since the user's first message at my talk page and at WT:AIRLINE as well, just amid an ongoing dispute with User:AerospaceAirAviation. Separately, should I reinstate my previous edit at Ethiopian Airlines? I'm asking because I don't want to be blocked again over warring concerns...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to the diff? Toddst1 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's this one.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that's something for you to work out with EagerToddler39 (talk · contribs) Toddst1 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The diff provided above includes just one minor edit from him/her, actually the latest made to the article, but it also includes another three ones made by the blocked user. Basically, I'm proposing to take the article to the latest clean version prior to these three edits of the blocked user. Given that that latest version is the one I contributed to, I'm asking for advice.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that why we have Talk:Ethiopian Airlines? Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

help me

hi my friend. I have a problem. Could you help to me? I'm preparing destination map for LTBA but I cannot use north america relief map. When I write like this I cannot see anything.

Anywhere

class=notpageimage|

Europe destinations from İstanbul Atatürk International Airport
; red: all-year round destinations, blue: seasonal destinations, yellow: future destination

but When I write like this I can see location map of North America. So How can I use North American relief map. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Location_map_North_America) --Mertborak (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Luxembourg

class=notpageimage|

Europe destinations from İstanbul Atatürk International Airport
; red: all-year round destinations, blue: seasonal destinations, yellow: future destination

I'm not familiar with the use of maps, but let me check out at any article where maps are used and I'll give you a response.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

O'Hare International Airport

Can you take a look at this page? A user continues to insist that Hainan Airlines's Chicago service will be operated on a seasonal basis when it begins service on 3 September 2013 but the reference provided doesn't mention the service being seasonal and also they have been adding sister airports but I don't think it is notable to be listed. It is reverted for now. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Air Algérie Flight 2208

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Air New Zealand Flight 901

Hi Jetstreamer - it's not easy to find a direct reference that indicates that Luke Hurley's song is about the Erebus Disaster, but the lyrics make it blindingly obvious, and I've talked with him about the song on several occasions. Hopefully a link the lyrics is close enough... Grutness...wha? 23:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see. But according to WP:VERIFY, it would be helpful (if not mandatory) to have at least a source to back the claim up. The lyrics might be a good start. Why don't you add it? Additional references can be requested by using {{additional citation needed}} close to it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You already added it. I'll try to find a complementary source.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopian Airlines service to MNL

Hi Jetstreamer! Recently, 2 editors have added Ethiopian Airlines to Ninoy Aquino International Airport as they are "planning" to start service to Manila on June 18, 2013 but are still citing airlineroute.net (which is NOT considered reliable) I had to revert them. Can you keep an eye on it? I had to remove the entry at Addis Ababa Bole International Airport as well. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

20000th

		Wikiwings
		In recognition of your 20000 edits mainly concerned with improving aviation articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, MilborneOne! Very best regards.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aeroflot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farnborough (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Hello Wikipedians! I'd like to know if edits like this one were appropriate. I've seen throughout many articles that a bot has been removing all the interwiki links ([1], [2], [3], and so on). Some days ago, I've warned a user who removed all these links from many articles and I restored them, but it seems I shouln't had done so. Thanks in advance! --Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, although the change has not been well advertised, these removals of interwiki links are not vandalism: interwiki links are now provided automatically through WP:Wikidata. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Wikidata and Interwiki links. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JohnCD. Very polite with your responses, as usual.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkish airlines new destination - Constanta

Good day Please note the websites which are the source for destination : Constanta http://www.turkishairlines.com/en-int/constanta/city-guide/flights-tickets-online-booking http://wire.seenews.com/news/turkish-airlines-to-fly-from-istanbul-to-romanias-constanta-336227 And many others, in romanian language, and on the wikipedia page for Mihail Kogalniceanu airport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.12.168.225 (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the sources above provide a start date.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkish airlines Constanta route

addition to Constanta routes : Mihail Kogalniceanu airport website: http://www.mk-airport.ro/indexen.php under the tab destionations It is accessible for reservation under THY website(online) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.12.168.225 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That link you provided might work as a reference, although an official press release would be better. Unfortunately, neither you nor me can add the destination back to the table, as the article has been fully protected by an administrator to prevent an edit war, as well as to encourage the discussion at talk pages.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Source for Ethiopian AIrlines's service to Manila and Seoul

I found a source for ET's service to Manila and Seoul (http://www.ethiosports.com/2013/02/10/ethiopian-airlines-expands-asian-network/) but I don't know if this source is reliable or not. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not. It relies upon routesonline.com, as indicated at the bottom of the text.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Try this one, that also mentions the commencement of services to GRU and GIG.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added it to the Bole Airport page and the MNL, SGN, and ICN pages as well. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Tan Son Nhat International Airport

Someone keeps removing Ethiopian Airlines from that page where as there is a source for that. Can you take a look? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

East African Airways

EAA had FIVE Super VC10s. The Flight archive is wrong or not updated for 1969, but IS CORRECT for the World Airline Survey in 1970. See http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1970/1970%20-%200531.html 5X-UVA, 5H-MMT, 5Y-ADA were the first 3. 5X-UVJ followed in 1969. The final VC10 was 5H-MOG which was delivered in 1970. 5X-UVA was lost at Addis Ababa in April 1972. The other 4 were repossessed by BAC when EAA collapsed in the late 1970s and were converted to aerial refuellers and re-delivered to the RAF as K3 tankers. They still fly to this day. I flew on them all.

86.154.18.161 (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The tail numbers provided are not supported by the above reference. Despite this, I reverted your edit because the only source backing the sentence you changed up did not support the modifications. Verifiability is one of the core policies.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

East African Airways

The article as it stands implies that EAA only operated four Super VC10s. This is just plain wrong and someone needs to sort it out. 86.154.18.161 (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article is said that the airline operated just four VC-10s. The article says three aircraft of the type were ordered at some time, and that a fourth was ordered later.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

KLM Source for Dublin route

I believe that the source is genuine. It was a short-lived KLM route 151/152 that stopped at Manchester Airport on its way to Dublin from Amsterdam. It's on table 10C of the timetable, so please revert it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacktheladz (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The route in the timetable you mention was operated by Aer Lingus (EI), not by KLM (KL). You're right. There's a KLM service in the timetable you provided. I've reinstated your edit to the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Air Seychelles flight from AUH-HKG-SEZ

Do you know if that flight is a pure Air Seychelles flight or is Air Seychelles wet leasing an Etihad plane to fly the route. Someone keeps making that flight "Air Seychelles operated by Etihad Airways" at the Abu Dhabi AIrport page. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Burgas Airport

check the page. that is OK? :) but the direct links to Burgas Airport page with all flights timetable is not work. How to put the correct links ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lzdimitar (talk • contribs)

The current version is even worse than the previous one. Apart from reverting my edit, you added tons of unsourced content. Do revert your latest edits, or provide a valid source for every claim introduced. This is serious. It's pretty obvious that you do not understand the verifiability policy.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand but the information for charters flights have only in airport website. All this information is correct but there is no where to put official resources. The same applies and to Varna Airport. From 3 years always'm adding accurate and correct information on Burgas, Varna and Sofia airports and also can easily check that. Tell your opinion how to add that information please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lzdimitar (talk • contribs)

If you don't have sources to back your claims up, then do not add anything at all. This is a good start.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again ! Check Varna and Burgas airports pages. That is good ? Regards :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lzdimitar (talk • contribs)

Is this a joke? The article is much in the same status it was when I commented about it. Even worse: you keep adding unsourced content ([4]). This is the last time I tell this to you in a friendly way: stop adding unsourced content, it is against a core policy.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

BER Airport

Hi Jetstreamer, I noticed that in early January 2013, you put a refimprove template on the top of Berlin Brandenburg Airport. In the meantime, quite a lot been has changed there. I think that by now, the article as a whole has a sufficient number of reliable sources (this might not be true for a few isolated sections). Do you have a different opinion? As always, I'd appreciate any thoughts and comments. Best regards --FoxyOrange (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Well, I placed that template mainly because of the edits dealing with the airlines that would operate into the airport. Even though that table has been wiped out, I still see unreferenced sentences and paragraphs all over the article. Cheers.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Aeroflot

I can see quite a few USSR era destinations in that list. inspector (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is referenced prior to 1992.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New Flybe Ireland

Hello Jetstreamer, I am asking for your help with a new article I am starting called Flybe Ireland link here -> [5]. It is a new deviation of the airline being in October 2013 at Dublin and Cork. This is the only reference I can fined so fear. I need to fined more information about the airline. If you can help me with the article I would greatly appreciate it . Thank you. Myland1111 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2013 (GMT)

The company hasn't been created yet. Starting an article will fall under WP:CRYSTAL and will likely be promptly deleted, as we do not know if the airline will be setup or not. Just wait until it exists.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Jet- FYI Myland1111 is another one[6] of Ryan kirkpatrick's socks....William 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Lanzarote airport

Please see that Orbest was an airline. So I have modified article Lanzarote airport as the airline is not operating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerard.edo (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You should have used the very same explanation in your edit summary, which you left blank.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for 2013 Compagnie Africaine d'Aviation crash

The DYK project (nominate) 00:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Asking for your input on a matter

Over at the Wikiproject Aviation/Aviation accident task force page [7]. You were chosen by myself because of your past work or input on aviation crash articles. Thank you for the help....William 11:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409

"Pilot error (sometimes called cockpit error) occurs when the pilot is considered to be principally or partially responsible for an aircraft accident."

As stated in the article itself, Ethiopian Airlines disputes the conclusion of the final report released by the Lebanese Civil Aviation Authority. Please explain why you are insisting the Type be "Pilot Error."

Do read http://www.flyethiopian.com/en/docs/downloads/ET409Inv/3_Part_II_Appended_to_the_Final_Report.pdf before reverting edit of "Disputed" to "Pilot error" (I will revert back your edit if I don't have reply from you). If you still further insist that the conclusions of Lebanese Civil Aviation Authority should be taken as facts, then you are going to have to present your point as to why you believe so. Please respond, or I will go ahead and re-correct the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You cannot use a primary source in this case. The airline will always challenge a report blaming it for any crash.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I can use a primary source to indicate dispute. You cannot use a primary source (Lebanese Civil Aviation Authority) and present their conclusion as facts. Your belief that an airliner may challenge a report is irrelevant in any case. Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Facts here are supported by reliable sources, and the agency that took over the investigations of the crash concluded that it was due to pilot error. I'm not inventing anything, I'm just following WP:VNT. The airline's press release report you're citing does not provide a valid cause, it just denies the official investigation. I'm afraid that's not enough information to say pilot error was not the cause. There won't be another investigation, so the conclusions have been drawn. The dispute raised by the airline is properly included in the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

EAL, according to the criteria, can be considered a reliable source. The information they published is verifiable. While you are considering the context of EAL's refutation to make a judgement about reliability and verifiability (actually, probably truth too), you are disregarding the fact that LCAA also has an invested interest in this context. "The airline's press release you're citing does not provide a valid cause, it just denies the official investigation." True EAL's official refutation does not supply cause for the crash. It, with substantiated arguments, disputes LCAA's conclusion. "I'm afraid that's not enough information to say pilot error was not the cause." This is true, and on the flip side, nor does LCAA's conclusion suffice as "the truth." This is exactly my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there's no truth at all. I'm neither with the LCAA's report nor against it. I'm only saying the official report of the accident points to pilot error as the cause. For this case, there ain't two official points of view, since the LCAA was the only official agency that run the investigation. This does not prevent you (or anyone else) from adding content to the article with the points raised by you that need more clarification. In particular, the vision of the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority (ECAA) is worth including. You do not need my support to edit the article, so go ahead with any editing you may want to do. Just remember to back anything you add with reliable sources. Does the ECAA report fall into this group?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What is an "official report"? LCAA conducted their investigation and arrived at a conclusion. It is LCAA's conclusion. EAL counters and disputes the conclusions. This is what we know. When "Pilot error" is listed in the box, it misleads readers giving the false impression that there is some sort of consensus. What is written already clearly indicates dispute, so what reason is there to see it as wrong to change "Pilot error" to "Disputed"? Further expansion and elaboration is, although an improvement, secondary to the discussion at hand. Under the circumstances, if you have a different/better resolution, I am interested to know. Until then, I'll go ahead and revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, but it's likely someone else besides me will revert you. LCAA conducetd the investigation because the aircraft crashed into Lebanese waters. It's a matter of jurisdiction what decides here the officiality of the LCAA report.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking in case I am missing something. Flight 409 crashed into Lebanese waters, but I do not at all see how this translates to LCAA's conclusions being end all be all. It seems their report is simply their stance on the matter ie their point of view. If you agree so far (as far as the purposes of Wikipedia are concerned) I hope you'll be there to revert back to "Disputed" when someone else edits it back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be copying this discussion into the article's talk page and ask for some feedback from other editors, if you don't mind. I'm not reverting your latest edit (actually, you reverted my reversion). I will let another editor do it, should there be a need.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.183 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ecuatoriana

And you can see masses of unreferenced material in this article - set about adding the missing information, instead of being overly critical. RuthAS (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not add the unsourced stuff you mention.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines - Eskişehir Flights are discontinued

Hello,

You've asked source about discontinued Eskişehir flights.. Well, I do not have any source, since the airline is escaping from any such announcement, but you may try to buy a ticket to Eskişehir and see that there is no flight. Actually, they transferred the flights to Eskişehir to nearby Zafer Airport, which was opened in the last quarter of 2012. Afterwards, they cancelled both İstanbul and Brussels flights from Eskişehir.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.193.30 (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing Seating Configs

Hi, I was wondering if an airline article should have a source for each seating config, especially for one going for GA. I am looking at United Airlines and none of the configs are sourced. I can source them all (they are not on the same page), but would it be an overkill? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Also to add some of them seem incorrect, for example there is 20/51/96 config for the 737-900 on the UA website. see here --JetBlast (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it will fall under WP:CITEKILL if every configuration has just a single supporting source. If I'm asked, I prefer having everything properly sourced. Some airlines include their seat configuration for different aircraft in the same page, so there's no need to provide multiple entries but a single one at the top of the table. As to the second matter, WP:BOLD applies.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the second matter, it turns out i can't read! But i did find there are missing configs for example the 757-300. I will look into this tomorrow. Each page has a tab of the seat config, do you think it would be best just to reference to the default page of the aircraft type or to ref to each tab page and align it to the seating config? An example of what i mean is here Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd use both [8] and [9].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Finally got back to this one. What do you think about an extra column for the ref like this on on my Sandbox page, it does need finishing but you get the idea. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Its going to take a while longer than i thought. Many of these seating configs appear to be incorrect. --JetBlast (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jetstreamer. You have new messages at Revolution1221's talk page.
Message added 15:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Revolution1221 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your tag bombing of several articles

Template:Refimprove article tagging should be used ONLY if there are MAJOR , OBVIOUS distortions of Main parts of the article, when inline tags are not enough.

You often tag the whole article without any clear thoughts seen.

Article tagging is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia.

Try to think and express your thoughts DETAILED. Only this will help: don't WP:POINT or WP:DISRUPT readers. Inline tags are BEST and help to improve.

For other or general criticism the article talk is best. Tagremover (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You're a little bit confused about the purpose of the {{refimprove}} template. It is to be used when any article clearly has not enough references. WP:TAGBOMB means putting a {{cn}} after every unsourced claim, making the article hard to read. You do not need to provide details when using {{refimprove}}: it's a redundancy for an article that is not sufficiently sourced. By the way, the use of the template is not disruptive at all, and providing reasons when using the template is not included in the documentation.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The user above and me have been into an argument regarding the discussion above. I see the user removing the {{refimprove}} from lots of articles I've tagged, something pretty clear from their username. What to do? I often tag articles that are in need of more sourcing, as it's the standard, while s(he) insists on using {{cn}} instead, which I found to be tag bombing. Thanks in advance for any comments.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Citation Needed template contains the following information in its documentation:

This template is intended for specific passages that need citation. For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}}.

So I agree with you that covering the article with Citation Needed templates is not best practices. -- Dianna (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That being said, edit warring on the removal of tags is not good either. Tagremover has been blocked. You should be more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That's why I requested admin intervention, rather than continuing with an edit war. Thanks to you both.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 04:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent activity at Turkish Airlines destinations

Hello, First of all, i'm not familiar with wiki editions. I hope i didn't create any panic. I don't want any vandalism, for sure.. :) Regarding TK destination page, I've tried to remove all extra references and replace with TK's official timetable issued on 5th of April. I thought no more reference needed anymore. In this regard, besides removing the old references, i've also added Gassim and Isparta destinations; I've indicated the suspended flights of Aleppo, Damascus and Sinop. Removed the cargo reference of Paris-CDG. I think that's all what i've changed yesterday.. Any suggestion, rejection and objection will be highly appreciated, of course.. Thanks & Kind Regards.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushuaia1 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's just that the old archived references that I restored give information on when flights to a number of new destinations started, and that will be usefuel for the new layout of the table, which actually has a start date column. Your edits wasn't vandalism at all, I never thought that. You're doing a great job in the article, and both of us are keeping it up-to-date and organised. All the best.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Fleet Images

Hi, I am just wondering what you think about this please? I am just a little sick of people flooding article with images. I like the way Kenya Airways is with a minimal amount of images. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 Already commented at the article's talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Qantas Jet Age

The citation I included for the Comet 4 information was included in my edit and was from here - http://www.aussieairliners.org/dh%20comet/austcometregister.htm.

The 747SP and 747-300 information was from here - http://www.aussieairliners.org/b-747/aust747index.html

The 767 information was from here http://www.aussieairliners.org/b-767/767australia.htm

I am happy to add in the citations for these if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentles (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding them will help. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Air Namibia article change

Hi

I thought the fact that I am a pilot with the company, albeit a senior pilot, will be enough grounds for the changes to be factual.

Currently 4x E135's are operated. 2x B735's are no longer in service. V5NDI has been ferried to the UK; and V5TNP is awaiting spares in Johannesburg, in order for the ferry flight to take place.

FYI: http://www.airnamibia.com.na/fleet

41.182.93.17 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Regards tbl

Although you did not provide the link above as a source, I will be bold and accept your explanations regarding the recent edits you made to the article. Let me remind you that being related in any way to the company does not count as enough proof. Actually, you did not include the reference above in an inline citation, and formally your edits are unsourced.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding changes on destinations of Turkish Airlines

There is wrong data about the flight detail of Turkish Airlines and I just tried to correct that which is Kuala-Lumpur flights. There wrights "resumes" and it has to be changed with "begins" this is all. I follow Turkish Airlines everyday even my office is just nearby Ataturk Airport. I can see the runway,parked planes,take offs and if they change the runways rarely landings. There are so many things to correct but Wikipedia do not let me correct the mistakes or add missing parts. For example cargo flight of MAS or Korean or 3 times a week I see the planes of Iberia which they resumed like that. What do I have to do to sort these corrections out and add the missing details.

Best regards,

Rifat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.127.230 (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's great, but Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding the verifiability of its contents. I'm afraid personal experiences do not count as a reliable source.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster

You removed a phrase I added in the lead section, explaining there that... this "adition" does not belong in the lead section. Well, some downright stupidities, though, it seems belong there, in your opinion. Anyway, I still wonder why it is ok to keep in that very lead section the fact that official soviet casualty count was disputed (w/o a hint to any verifiable source or reference) and the truism that the "cancers are still being accounted for", but not a detail that clarify the fact that beyond any dispute, and beyond any statistic made today or in the future, there is already KNOWN the fact that any increase in cancer rates, if detectable, shall be small. BTW, suggesting that one of the effects of radiation spread by the accident is having "deformities" in humans (or animals) is downright false and stupid, at least according to the source I already cited in support of the claims you hurried to remove:

So when we put these Chernobyl-related doses in context, it is reasonably clear that a large increase in cancers is unlikely. […] Despite these strong scientific data, stories in newspapers, magazines, and even books continue to describe children with birth defects supposedly from Chernobyl and, in one instance, a three-headed cow. These claims have no basis in fact.

Not even the more- and heavier-exposed survivers of the a-bombs in hiroshima and nagasaky had frequently such "deformities", and the explanation for that fact is quite simple. So, simply removing a pertinent elucidation supported by verifiable and reliable sources, that tried only to remove the doubts a more-than-imperfect phrasing slyly suggest, you seem pretty much biased. Can`t you try to contribute more - and more often - in ADDING details substantiated with verifiable and reliable sources, than "contributing" here by removing the contributions of the others, my dear "jetstreamer"? Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Aeroflot Flight 593

Hello,

I just reverted your edit to the Aeroflot Flight 593 page because I wanted to clarify that this addition was in fact just a translation based on the primary source (The Youtube video linked). Which is why it should be a part of the article.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And where's the source? The section is unreferenced.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a youtube video of the flight recording from the black box [The second "External Link"]. That is the source of the transcript. I've clarified the same in the section the best i could. Maybe it could be made even clearer? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the source should be placed within the section. Maybe, after the ":" and immediatley before the transcription. Nevertheless, I doubt about the reliability of YouTube.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether its best to do that when we already have it in external links. Is there a best practise to follow for the same?

I too would ordinarily doubt a Youtube video, but this video appears both hard to replicate as well as correct to all the facts. I'm very sure this video is genuine. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. No need for Talkbacks. I'm watching your talk page right now. Also, if need be, linking my username works just as well (Thanks to the new notifications) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep it, then. Regarding the sourcing of the section, I'll include an inline citation if you don't mind. Please check the article and tell me what you think. BTW, do you miss the OBOD as much as I do???--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The inline citation looks good. A note could be even better I think, as its better to clarify that it is a tranlation of the entire incident.

Yes, i do. I'm currently using Writkeeper's script as a temporary measure but we're also discussing bringing back OBoD with the Echo team. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've also re-added the external link, as I think it will be otherwise likely to be missed when placed in the references section. IMO its better to have a little redundancy than not displaying a critical (primary) source about the incident. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool, that's good for me. I have a concern regarding the name of the unidentified pilot. Is there any source for that? Is tha stuff included in the video?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

None that the editor translating it told me of. I believe it was because the audio of the pilot could not be identified from the recording [Either was non-distinguishable from either pilot's voice, or was unlike both of their voices] but other transcripts (There is one incomplete one referenced in several places) noted him as "Makarov". TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll check the sources already in the article and see if can find something mentioning this name. I think we're done with this. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Ping me if you want me to look over something. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good morning! I'm the user who translated the recording and added it to the article. My apologies for failing to add an inline citation; not sure what I was thinking there. For some reason I believed the youtube link would suffice, but obviously forgot it was listed under "External links" not "Sources". Thanks to both of you for clearing that up.
• "V. E. Makarov" is expressly identified as the third pilot by the official investigation report (at the top of page 5 and in other places thereafter). I'm a little pressed for time now, but will also add that as a reference later today. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for that.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll archive the official report you added as soon as WebCite is alive again.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the link for the official report dead? The url provided above takes me to an image.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That's strange, I thought I had linked directly to the PDF but apparently the website forced a redirect. Do you see the link right above the embedded video, beneath the image (where it says Официальный документ расследования)? That should take you to the document. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait a couple of days...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange that you can't access it. I can re-upload the PDF somewhere if needed, I had the presence of mind to download it to disk last week. It's possibly the only comprehensive source on the subject, it'll be hard to improve/expand the Flight 593 article without it. (I'm hoping to gradually get it to GA status.) Tempodivalse [talk] 20:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

CN-RGN

HEllo Jetstreamer the 737-800 CN-RGN has an 50th aircraft logo on the side. Royal Air Maroc say this on her facebook page. And shown pictures of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.188.105 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was unsourced. Furthermore, go to WP:SELFSOURCE regarding Facebook.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)