User talk:RgSim

Welcome!

Hello, RgSim, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.27.95 (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop making disruptive edits.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.27.95 (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAS on Munich-Aarhus[edit]

Hello there. Please refer to our guidelines. A route is only considered seasonal if it is not served several months of either the summer or winter schedule. An operational gap of approx. six weeks like on SAS' new service on Munich-Aarhus is still considered year-round as this route has not been announced as a summer-only service in this case (routesonline.com would have mentioned this). Also please note that you have to provide a source (and regarding new content also a citation) for all changes you make - otherwise they will be undone. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.27.95 (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EI on Cork-Munich[edit]

Hello there. Please note that Munich-Cork has been served year-round for several years now and until EI's 2018 summer schedule is fully available we expect it to stay that way. Someone originally changed it to seasonal without giving any source or citation. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.27.95 (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of refs for existing routes[edit]

Discussion at Talk:Eindhoven Airport about your removal of references from airport articles. Batternut (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references you removed have been there since at least 1 August. Your removal of them was bold, that's fine, I reverted, now we discuss, per WP:BRD. And please keep your edit comments WP:CIVIL. Batternut (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Eindhoven Airport. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. I am sure you have you reasons for removing these references, and are doing so in good faith. You must however be prepared to explain why you are doing this - please enter into discussion at Talk:Eindhoven Airport#Removal of refs for existing routes. Batternut (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TravelLover37 (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Nuremberg Airport, you may be blocked from editing. LakesideMiners (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LakesideMiners Please can you explain how my editting can be deemed as "distruptive"? Thanks RgSim (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Paphos International Airport shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please note you are already past 3RR. I am going to revert your edit one final time with this explanation. You are using a searchable database to figure the route is seasonal. That is WP:OR. Please read up on that. Secondly, providing a source (WP:RS) that is just a link to the airline website, that is not supporting anything and you can and should expect your edit to be reverted. Please find discussion on referencing both here and here. Please feel free to add content, but when you change something, the burden is on YOU to find a reliable, explicit reference that does not require original research. Garretka (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

WP:BURDEN always applies. References are never simply “not needed” Andrewgprout (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

carry on like that and you will be blocked from editing - as said before when you were some one else You will never ever be a pilot without a big attitude change. Andrewgprout (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When a new routes starts DO NOT remove the reference provided it is there to show that the individual route is operating. CBG17 (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not per the airport guide. Besides why would they need to be a kept when a route is live!! Please explain. RgSim (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To provide evidence that the route is actually operating. CBG17 (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the airport guide state otherwise? I don't think 1 person (yourself - CBG17) is allowed the overrule that!! RgSim (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT does NOT trump WP:V, leave inline sources there and remember that doing mock bookings or using searchable timetables is WP:OR, I don't understand what you're not grasping about these simple concepts. Garretka (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at your talk page it seems that another user has picked up on you removing reliable references when the route has begun, the guidelines do not say "when a route has begun remove the reference" and why does it matter if the reference is there it provides confirmation for a reader that the flight is actually operated. CBG17 (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning, disruptive editing[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Garretka (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Andrewgprout. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Brussels Airport, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR[edit]

Please note that unless December 6 is explicitly mentioned in the article, you cannot change the referenced material. I understand what you are doing, but also understand what is being said in WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

The date stated in the source is December 4. Looking at a calendar and editing the date so it matches the days in the reference is the exact definition of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Finally you are on 3RR, so please be careful. Read these policies above and understand why you cannot do what you are doing. Garretka (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Andrewgprout. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gran Canaria Airport, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Healthrow and references[edit]

This edit does not have a reference on it you saying it does is clearly false - it needs one or it will be deleted. "check the BA website in an edit summary is NOT a reference. [[1]]. A reference needs to be WP:RS much of what you are doing is WP:SYNTHESIS. Please stop it you are being disruptive like you have been numerous times in the past as several still banned editors. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RgSim reported by User:86.184.198.52 (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Instead of edit warring how about you join a discussion. Half of Wikipedia is not based on this principle. Wikipedia is based on tertiary sources, not primary. WP:V applies, its a good read and understand that local consensus cannot outweigh it.

"What's the point in changing this" - the point in changing this is to bring it in line with Wikipedia core policies. Citing airline websites or searchable timetables encourages original research which must be avoided. I encourage you to broaden your editing boundaries to understand this. The reference gives no mention that service is seasonal, other than "service increase in W17". Service increase compared to what? You can't infer that from the source.

While I support some of your recent edits, this is one I do not support. I would appreciate it if you could read over the 3 RR rule and all of the above material on your talk page to better understand why your edits are reverted, and if you can revert your previous edit until a suitable source can be found. Garretka (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RgSim you have been reported for editing since you chose to ignore this. Garretka (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RgSim reported by User:Garretka. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you respond there as more reverts might result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 96 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Heathrow Airport. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Andrewgprout (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Futurepilot1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Excuse me!? I have no idea what you are talking about. This is my only account I have used to edit. I'm confused as to why I have been blocked? RgSim (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed by CheckUser - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Futurepilot1999/Archive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.