SurferSquall (talk | contribs) →Planespotters, for real: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply |
SurferSquall (talk | contribs) →Planespotters, for real: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply |
||
Line 417: | Line 417: | ||
:::::In this case it is important. A series of majorly flawed arguments has snowballed into the most flawed “consensus” I’ve run into over something, more so than a lot of serious real-life problems. It’s baffling that so many will willfully ignore the fact that their arguments are easily proven false. The companies’ own proprietor offered to do so. And it’s an injustice to Wikipedia in the sense that it’s the largest and most detailed source available anywhere for the information it contains. Deprecating it will only serve to further lower the quality of Wikipedia’s already depreciating aviation articles. It’s sad, above all else. Sad. [[User:SurferSquall|SurferSquall]] ([[User talk:SurferSquall#top|talk]]) 01:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
:::::In this case it is important. A series of majorly flawed arguments has snowballed into the most flawed “consensus” I’ve run into over something, more so than a lot of serious real-life problems. It’s baffling that so many will willfully ignore the fact that their arguments are easily proven false. The companies’ own proprietor offered to do so. And it’s an injustice to Wikipedia in the sense that it’s the largest and most detailed source available anywhere for the information it contains. Deprecating it will only serve to further lower the quality of Wikipedia’s already depreciating aviation articles. It’s sad, above all else. Sad. [[User:SurferSquall|SurferSquall]] ([[User talk:SurferSquall#top|talk]]) 01:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::I blocked you for disruptive editing in general, and I stand by that block. You used that source after knowing that consensus was that it does not meet Wikipedia’s specific definition of a reliable source. Instead, you chose to complain ad nauseum, wasting the precious volunteer time of other editors. Many sources that are useful and interesting in other contexts are not acceptable as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Blogs by amateur scholars, for example, are frequently fascinating and often quite informative, and may well contain clues or even citations to actually reliable sources. Even so, these blogs are not acceptable as references on Wikipedia. You have been tendentious for quite a while on this issue. You really ought to take the excellent advice at [[Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass]], but I suspect you won't, though I hope you do. Don't worry. Wikipedia's coverage of aviation topics will be just fine without you. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 03:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
::::::I blocked you for disruptive editing in general, and I stand by that block. You used that source after knowing that consensus was that it does not meet Wikipedia’s specific definition of a reliable source. Instead, you chose to complain ad nauseum, wasting the precious volunteer time of other editors. Many sources that are useful and interesting in other contexts are not acceptable as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Blogs by amateur scholars, for example, are frequently fascinating and often quite informative, and may well contain clues or even citations to actually reliable sources. Even so, these blogs are not acceptable as references on Wikipedia. You have been tendentious for quite a while on this issue. You really ought to take the excellent advice at [[Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass]], but I suspect you won't, though I hope you do. Don't worry. Wikipedia's coverage of aviation topics will be just fine without you. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 03:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::I am well permitted by Wikipedia’s own rules to state the fact that it is a reliable source. As I’ve said numerous times the consensus, no matter how many people agree with it, is false; STILL none of you will prove it is an unreliable source, and all of my arguments for it STILL went ignored. And, no, I’m not sure the aviation topic will be fine- well over a hundred articles cite Planespotters, the majority of them several times. [[User:SurferSquall|SurferSquall]] ([[User talk:SurferSquall#top|talk]]) 16:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply|SurferSquall}} The block is not about planespotters.net, it is about your disruptive behaviour. I'd seriously recommend a voluntary topic ban (including right here!), it's something I have imposed on myself on the odd occasion and it worked well for me. — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 11:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
:{{reply|SurferSquall}} The block is not about planespotters.net, it is about your disruptive behaviour. I'd seriously recommend a voluntary topic ban (including right here!), it's something I have imposed on myself on the odd occasion and it worked well for me. — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 11:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
::And yet you still will not specify how exactly advocating for a perfectly good source is “disruptive behavior”. [[User:SurferSquall|SurferSquall]] ([[User talk:SurferSquall#top|talk]]) 16:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
::And yet you still will not specify how exactly advocating for a perfectly good source is “disruptive behavior”. [[User:SurferSquall|SurferSquall]] ([[User talk:SurferSquall#top|talk]]) 16:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:38, 16 November 2023
Welcome!
Hello, SurferSquall! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place
{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC) |
---|
|
|
Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Geo-Sky moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Geo-Sky, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- would you be able to help me with some edits on that article? or send someone my way that can? SurferSquall (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on All Nippon Airways fleet
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page All Nippon Airways fleet, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Failure to follow WP:BRD
Regarding your split to the Qatar Airways, it has been disputed per WP:BRD. Discuss on talk page and gain consensus before making the split. Restoring the content without CONSENSUS is will enter edit warring territory. Discussion at Talk:Qatar Airways#Proposed Split. // Timothy :: talk 07:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
April 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Qatar Airways. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jetstreamer Talk 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Huh? SurferSquall (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I never reverted anything more than once or twice SurferSquall (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Korean Air. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:All Nippon Airways, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aerolíneas Argentinas, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. According to your user's talk page you have a recent history of conflicts across a number of articles. I strongly suggest you to listen to users that are more experienced that you, stop your disruptive editing and engage in discussions at talk pages. Jetstreamer Talk 20:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Lake Country Regional Airport
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Lake Country Regional Airport requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Citadeol (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lake Country Regional Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asphalt. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
1885 Gorge Bridge train crash moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to 1885 Gorge Bridge train crash. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of 1885 Gorge Bridge train crash
Hello SurferSquall,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 1885 Gorge Bridge train crash for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can , but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Wolfs Fang Runway, you may be blocked from editing. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 19:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- The article shouldn't be a redirect to another one. It's plenty notable enough. SurferSquall (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Wolfs Fang Runway. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- What did I add that was unsourced/poorly sourced? SurferSquall (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Everything I removed and you subsequently restored. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- That was added in 2020 by a different user. I simply un-blanked the page. SurferSquall (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- not too sure what you're talking about SurferSquall (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Everything I removed and you subsequently restored. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- That information was added in 2020 by a different user- I didn't even have this account then. SurferSquall (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- It does not matter. You are restoring unsourced information without providing inline citations to support said information, while egregiously and misleadingly flagging my removal as "vandalism". Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your removal was indeed vandalism, and also, you first contacted me before I did that. So what was that about? SurferSquall (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- I strongly urge you to read edit summaries and, more importantly, assume good faith. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith is one thing, having good faith apply is another. The White Desert article contains an unacceptable lack of information on the subject, I suggest expanding that before blanking and redirecting the article in question. SurferSquall (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- That onus is on you, not on me. If you go out of your way to restore a poorly referenced article, you ought to provide adequate sources. You should never restore unsourced information without backing it up with adequate inline citations. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- The article appears to be missing what may be the best citation for it, let me go ahead and add it. SurferSquall (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- You added] exactly one inline citation verifying the lead sentence. Unless you provide inline citations for the information included under #Usage and maintenance, the information should and will be removed. Also, it should not require two warning messages to persuade you to add citations where they are missing. You should do that as soon as information is challenged. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- So an article shouldn't exist if the inline citations aren't flawless? Great SurferSquall (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- It should not be restored unless it is adequately supported by inline citations. You'd have been free to restore the redirect to a proper article at any time had you rewritten it to conform with our verifiability policy, which you a) didn't do and b) started edit warring when unsourced info was justifiably challenged. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- At the very minimum remove the bad info then. Still needs to be its own article, as the one for White Desert has very little information at all SurferSquall (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? That's precisely what I did in the first place. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- My bad. Guess this whole discussion was pointless. Have a nice day SurferSquall (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Not quite pointless because it (hopefully) informed you about our sourcing policy, which I trust you'll put into practice in your future editing. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 22:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed I will. Might I suggest you don't open a discussion with a threat of an edit ban, that was pretty crazy to see out of nowhere SurferSquall (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd argue it wasn't "out of nowhere" since you had already received a level-2 warning to that effect. Each subsequent violation of WP:V inevitably results in level-3 and level-4 warnings; it's standard procedure. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 13:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed I will. Might I suggest you don't open a discussion with a threat of an edit ban, that was pretty crazy to see out of nowhere SurferSquall (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Not quite pointless because it (hopefully) informed you about our sourcing policy, which I trust you'll put into practice in your future editing. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 22:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- My bad. Guess this whole discussion was pointless. Have a nice day SurferSquall (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? That's precisely what I did in the first place. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- At the very minimum remove the bad info then. Still needs to be its own article, as the one for White Desert has very little information at all SurferSquall (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- It should not be restored unless it is adequately supported by inline citations. You'd have been free to restore the redirect to a proper article at any time had you rewritten it to conform with our verifiability policy, which you a) didn't do and b) started edit warring when unsourced info was justifiably challenged. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- So an article shouldn't exist if the inline citations aren't flawless? Great SurferSquall (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- You added] exactly one inline citation verifying the lead sentence. Unless you provide inline citations for the information included under #Usage and maintenance, the information should and will be removed. Also, it should not require two warning messages to persuade you to add citations where they are missing. You should do that as soon as information is challenged. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- The article appears to be missing what may be the best citation for it, let me go ahead and add it. SurferSquall (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- That onus is on you, not on me. If you go out of your way to restore a poorly referenced article, you ought to provide adequate sources. You should never restore unsourced information without backing it up with adequate inline citations. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith is one thing, having good faith apply is another. The White Desert article contains an unacceptable lack of information on the subject, I suggest expanding that before blanking and redirecting the article in question. SurferSquall (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- I strongly urge you to read edit summaries and, more importantly, assume good faith. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your removal was indeed vandalism, and also, you first contacted me before I did that. So what was that about? SurferSquall (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- It does not matter. You are restoring unsourced information without providing inline citations to support said information, while egregiously and misleadingly flagging my removal as "vandalism". Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Interstatefive. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Minor-attracted person. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. interstatefive 17:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Asiana Airlines. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
AMAC Aerospace moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to AMAC Aerospace. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because mostly not independently sourced. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- @I dream of horses: This article features only information that is obviously verifiable from the sources listed- also, there are two independent sources listed. I fail to see the issue. Please elaborate? SurferSquall (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Mostly not independently sourced". If the majority of sources (three out of five) are non-independent, the article is far from ready for mainspace. Wikipedia articles should base their information overwhelmingly on independent secondary coverage, not on what the subject says about itself. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 13:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I can find more sources for information I have not yet added- but I cannot seem to find any more verification for what is there already. If I add the additional information (along with sources) would it make it ok? SurferSquall (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's for AfC reviewers to decide. You can edit the draft and submit it for review once you've improved it, as I dream of horses laid out above. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 16:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I will SurferSquall (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's for AfC reviewers to decide. You can edit the draft and submit it for review once you've improved it, as I dream of horses laid out above. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 16:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I can find more sources for information I have not yet added- but I cannot seem to find any more verification for what is there already. If I add the additional information (along with sources) would it make it ok? SurferSquall (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Mostly not independently sourced". If the majority of sources (three out of five) are non-independent, the article is far from ready for mainspace. Wikipedia articles should base their information overwhelmingly on independent secondary coverage, not on what the subject says about itself. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 13:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Unsolicited advice
I strongly recommend you spend some time improving existing articles, rather than creating new ones. This is where you are running into issues. Creating new articles is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia, and if you gain experience expanding and referencing existing ones first you will learn the skills needed to create new articles successfully and understand what sort of references are needed to show a subject is notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Aviation Capital Group moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Aviation Capital Group, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 TT me 10:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
EvergreenFir (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in UPS Airlines. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. No sources were provided for new title, and the current title was affirmed in an RM, so an RM is needed to move again except in obvious cases, which this is not. Also, you did not even attempt to update article links with the new name, and links in navboxes, as recommended by WP:RM. BilCat (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- How do I provide a source for the move? This Wikipedia articles seems to be the only material referring to it as “UPS Airlines”. SurferSquall (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_26. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Vaguely worded insulting comment about closes by an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Air Zaïre shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ahunt (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- You cannot remove a source based on personal opinion. SurferSquall (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Braathens
Hi @SurferSquall, I see you’ve removed the unsupported content tag on the Braathens list of destinations. This was placed there because the dates in the list are unsupported by the references cited, because the references have a publication date years before the events they are supposed to support occurred. It is simply not possible that end-date of 2002 for the flight to Stansted is supported by a reference published in 1998. Similarly, it is not possible that the flights to Umea that began in 1997 and ended in 1999 are supported by a reference published in 1996. There are a number of claims like this made throughout the list, leaving it lacking support in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
SurferSquall (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The separate fleet page has existed for months, KorFlyer88 was persistently removing the link to it. Consensus on separate fleet pages for airlines with large fleets was reached months ago, featuring a separate fleet page is nothing new! SurferSquall (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You're blocked for edit warring. You'll need to address that and that only. Justified edit warring is still edit warring. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:37, 29 May 2023 (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.
SurferSquall (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your page has multiple warnings for edit warring, among other issues, so this is not exactly a bolt from the blue. There are only three generally accepted exceptions to WP:3RR, reverting naked vandalism, naked copyright violations and serious BLP violations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- What else do you suggest I have done instead? SurferSquall (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you having a content dispute, you take it to the talk page. If someone is editing in a manner that is clearly disruptive, but not vandalism, then you can issue warnings on their talk page If that still doesn't slow them down, then you can request admin intervention. See also WP:DR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Also, why in the world was I blocked and not the other user? SurferSquall (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- At the time I blocked you they had not edit warred past their warning. However, I see that since then they have. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I find it annoying primarily because, while this might sound obtuse, a link to the separate article IS needed; I really do not understand why they are so adamant to remove it and attempt to get me blocked SurferSquall (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- At the time I blocked you they had not edit warred past their warning. However, I see that since then they have. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Also, why in the world was I blocked and not the other user? SurferSquall (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you having a content dispute, you take it to the talk page. If someone is editing in a manner that is clearly disruptive, but not vandalism, then you can issue warnings on their talk page If that still doesn't slow them down, then you can request admin intervention. See also WP:DR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- What else do you suggest I have done instead? SurferSquall (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Asiana fleet
@KorFlyer88: Care to explain your adamant removal of the link to the Asiana fleet page, despite that page having existed for several months? What’s the issue with it existing? Not really fair to accuse me of vandalism for adding such a link SurferSquall (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- @SurferSquall @KoFlyer88 Warnings were issued, and you both ignored them. You have both now been blocked for 24hrs. This edit warring stops right now. When your respective blocks have expired you can either discuss this on the article talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS or move on to some other productive editing elsewhere. See also WP:DR. I do not want to have to address this subject again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- It appears he had an administrator block me from editing the page permanently? Seriously? SurferSquall (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Negative. Mine is the only block currently in place. The responding admin was referring to my block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Warning Do not Edit War. I am fully aware that the other party is doing so while logged out and have blocked them for a week. If they do so again, report it to an admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- P.S. Or just drop me a line. They are dancing on the edge of an indefinite block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- It appears he had an administrator block me from editing the page permanently? Seriously? SurferSquall (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Indonesian Air Force
DO NOT engaged in an edit warring as done on List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force article. You are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to honor any consensus gained, as opposed to repeatedly undoing other users'. If they're certain changes you want to make, then do them individually, rather than reverting the entire article. If you engage in an edit war, you will be blocked again from editing. FOX 52 talk! 00:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I simply edited the article to reflect the talk page consensus. SurferSquall (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
June 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indonesian Air Force. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう!) 01:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's the thing- my edits were to bring it to the consensus reached on the talk page. SurferSquall (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your talk page is getting cluttered with warnings for edit warring. You have already been blocked once for that. Tread carefully. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm saying I don't believe they're fair warnings. SurferSquall (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Read WP:3RR very carefully. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- So even if someone is removing properly sourced, typed and copyedited information over and over again I'm just supposed to let that happen? SurferSquall (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- No. If somebody is editing disruptively, which includes edit warring, you can issue warnings and if they continue, you can request admin intervention. I really do not enjoy blocking people, especially when I believe they are trying to do the right thing. But edit warring is inherently disruptive. Once someone has been warned sufficiently you can report them to WP:3RRN or WP:ANI for most non-edit warring disruption. Instances of naked WP:VANDALISM can be reported to WP:AIV. Just be sure that it's actually malicious editing. And you can always drop a line to specific admins if you know they are online or it's not time sensisive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- So even if someone is removing properly sourced, typed and copyedited information over and over again I'm just supposed to let that happen? SurferSquall (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Read WP:3RR very carefully. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm saying I don't believe they're fair warnings. SurferSquall (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your talk page is getting cluttered with warnings for edit warring. You have already been blocked once for that. Tread carefully. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)- If you don't stop your incessant edit warring, you are going to end up getting blocked indefinitely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Again, it is only reverting unsourced and unexplained removals/changes of content, i did nothing wrong SurferSquall (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why is it that you only seem to care about this “edit warring” and not at all about the content issues themselves? seems it would be a better use of time to fix those SurferSquall (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am not editing the article because I don't know much about the subject. I am an admin and part of my job is to stop disruptive editing. I have linked WP:3RR repeatedly. I left a note on the article talk page expressly warning that doing more than three reverts in a 24 hr period on the same page was edit warring and I listed the few exceptions. You were pinged. I don't know what else to do. You are starting to make me wonder if this may be a case of WP:IDHT or WP:CIR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t appreciate personal attacks. It’s a goddamn fleet table, full of numbers. Discussion gets nowhere. I was having a good time on Wikipedia until all of this and really you aren’t being helpful about it at all SurferSquall (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am not editing the article because I don't know much about the subject. I am an admin and part of my job is to stop disruptive editing. I have linked WP:3RR repeatedly. I left a note on the article talk page expressly warning that doing more than three reverts in a 24 hr period on the same page was edit warring and I listed the few exceptions. You were pinged. I don't know what else to do. You are starting to make me wonder if this may be a case of WP:IDHT or WP:CIR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
SurferSquall (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am only reverting the constant unexplained and unsourced changes to the article by Ckfasdf and EvoSwatch, both of whom insist on adding information from older sources or that is entirely unsupported by the sources listed. Multiple times they have sourced content to “sources” that do not at all support their changes, i have to revert this over and over and over and over and over as discussion with them does not get anywhere. (My request for rollback rights was completely ignored.) Page protection would do nothing, as both users are extended confirmed. It’s a waste of time for me to have to check this page every single day for the past (week?) now to undo these disruptive edits and to see myself blocked for that sucks, because isn’t all contentious content on this site supposed to be properly sourced? Yet i’m getting blocked for removing unsourced and unsupported information. Tell me how it even makes sense? SurferSquall (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As I said on your last block, You're blocked for edit warring. You'll need to address that and that only. Justified edit warring is still edit warring. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:19, 5 June 2023 (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.
- As I stated before, actually multiple times, if someone is editing disruptively, you can issue warnings and request admin intervention at WP:ANI. Yes, that includes adding improperly sourced content. I intensely dislike blocking editors who are obviously not trying to be malicious. But you have a wall of warnings on your talk page about this and you just came off a 24 hr block. This wasn't a close call. Your wave of reverts was a flagrant 3RR violation. I am not going to decline your unblock request because I am the blocking admin. But IMO you don't get it, and until that changes I can't support your request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- A: there is no easily accessible page anywhere that contains instructions on these “warnings” (ive looked for it for months, maybe i’m just retarded) B: You warn only me and nobody else. Why not? C: What the hell would ANI do? Make some poor admin read through an argument between idiots over a bunch of fucking numbers in a fleet table, an argument that has lasted a WEEK? because two or three people seem to have completely lost understanding of (A: the English language and B:how to read)? What good would that do? Especially when 90% of the requests ive ever made on similar pages have gone completely ignored? I’m starting to sound like a broken record, and I honestly think the fact that you’d happily block me any chance you get for this “edit war” rule is pretty sad! Especially so because you keep claiming i am “well intentioned” (i am, and always have been) SurferSquall (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- See WP:TW. That is an excellent tool for all sorts of editing and easy to apply templates including warnings. I use it myself. You can also check out WP:WARN though I think Twinkle is much easier than manually copying and pasting the various templates. As for C, I haven't actually noticed them edit warring but I don't monitor the editing activities of specific users as a rule. I do however monitor some pages where there has been a history of problematic editing. ANI is not my favorite place, see my thoughts about that on my user page, but users who are editing disruptively are (usually) dealt with there. As for "dumb ass rules," you are free to disagree with them, but you are not free to ignore them. There are a number of guidelines that I'm not wild about as well. I either live with them or, in one case in particular, I avoid editing at all in a certain subject area because of a specific guideline that I emphatically disagree with. But again, to quote an old expression, themz the rules until they aint. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- A: there is no easily accessible page anywhere that contains instructions on these “warnings” (ive looked for it for months, maybe i’m just retarded) B: You warn only me and nobody else. Why not? C: What the hell would ANI do? Make some poor admin read through an argument between idiots over a bunch of fucking numbers in a fleet table, an argument that has lasted a WEEK? because two or three people seem to have completely lost understanding of (A: the English language and B:how to read)? What good would that do? Especially when 90% of the requests ive ever made on similar pages have gone completely ignored? I’m starting to sound like a broken record, and I honestly think the fact that you’d happily block me any chance you get for this “edit war” rule is pretty sad! Especially so because you keep claiming i am “well intentioned” (i am, and always have been) SurferSquall (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
SurferSquall (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don’t agree with the edit warring rule, but I do realize that it was unhelpful and there were better ways to go about it. I’ll cease to edit war on that page and deal with the issue somewhere/somehow else. All i’m here to do is add to pages and fix mistakes in pages, I haven’t ever meant to do anything bad. SurferSquall (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Per your request and agreement to abide by community guidelines. Let's not go down this particular road again please. Happy editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- You have been unblocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: Please note that this user is involved in an ongoing edit warring at Asiana Airlines.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Jetstreamer I'm seeing two reverts here. That's not a 3RR vio, but it's dancing pretty close to the line. Ditto @Ckfasdf. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: Please note that this user is involved in an ongoing edit warring at Asiana Airlines.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Aircraft carriers
Please read WP:NC-SHIPS before making anymore ill-advised changes to the names of ship articles. Your changes are incorrect and have been reverted. Llammakey (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Whoops. Sorry SurferSquall (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
reversions
Maybe, just maybe, before you blindly revert changes in a link name, on a topic you clearly are uninformed about, you should read the page being linked to? - NiD.29 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Apologies if i messed something up SurferSquall (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
United BOS-LHR stats
The statistics are from 2021 to 2022 and United was flying that route as of that time and the service does not end until the end of October. Please wait until stats are updated to October 2023 that do not include United. Thanks. 97.82.30.107 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
rudeness and condescention.
"I suggest you read deeper into things like that" implies that I have not done my homework and that you, the superior being, wish to remind me of this in order to score noddy points. You evidently forgot that a user account at planespotters is a necessary prerequisite and that not all of us might care to open one. And you forgot to mind your manners. That you claim to be puzzled over this speaks volumes, and endorses my decision to stop trying to help you out. Feel free to delete this from your user talk page, as I am sure it is not what you want to hear - but you did ask, and the article talk page is the wrong venue for the answer. And no, I will not be watching here for a response. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
July 2023
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- The above presumably references this edit of yours. I have redacted it for you. This is the second time I have done so in the same discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Paul H. Cohen
Hello SurferSquall, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Paul H. Cohen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Spirit Airlines (disambiguation)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Spirit Airlines (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
- disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
- disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
- is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Gjs238 (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Supermarine Scimitar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farnborough.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
September 2023
Hey,
you changed the amount of A380 in service according to an "official Emirates company report". What is the exact reference? A verifiable reference must be stated per WP:PROVEIT. Additionally when adjusting the amount of aircraft in service, it's necessary to also adjust the total amount of aircraft in the bottom of the fleet table. WikiPate (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- I see now, you got the 116 A380 from the Emirates annual report 2023. But the amount of 116 A380 are as of 31 March 2023, as the financial year of Emirates ended on that day. How do you know that in the 6 months between 31 March 2023 and today no A380 has been reactivated or retired? WikiPate (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- I had that report as a citation next to the number, no idea who removed it. If you can find a more recent source that states something different, you’re welcome to change it. Company sources are often best for this, because, well, they’re the company. SurferSquall (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:AMAC Aerospace
Hello, SurferSquall. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:AMAC Aerospace, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
October 2023
Hi,
Do you have a source on the planned seat configuration for the Northwest 787? I wasn't able to find any myself. You can feel free to leave it in if you find a source but if you are unable, I must revert it; to quote WP:PROVEIT, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material...".
-Thanks, TheTransitFanNY (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Obviously whoever added it got it from somewhere. I’m going to drop a cn tag on it and leave it at that, it’s not exactly harmful SurferSquall (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. Although I'd like to find some source on it since they were never delivered in the first place. Maybe some kind of press release somewhere. If I find it, I'll put in in. TheTransitFanNY (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm guessing it came from a forum over a decade ago, there's no finding that SurferSquall (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. Although I'd like to find some source on it since they were never delivered in the first place. Maybe some kind of press release somewhere. If I find it, I'll put in in. TheTransitFanNY (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Singapore Airlines fleet. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and fixed a grammar error in the last editor's edit, don't block me lol SurferSquall (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on Singapore Airlines fleet
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Singapore Airlines fleet, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
15 October 2023
There is currently a discussion about your actions here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Sun Country Airlines destinations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Syracuse and Grand Rapids Airport.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - ZLEA T\C 17:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
October 2023
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. - You have repeatedly been editing disruptively against consensus by using a source that has been determined to be unreliable, even when you are well aware of the consensus. This is unacceptable behavior and it must end now. Cullen328 (talk)
SurferSquall (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here I have the right to attempt to get a flawed consensus changed. I made a serious attempt to do so, which was ignored. I have not used the supposedly unreliable source at all since it was brought to my attention again. I do not believe, per Wikipedia's own rules, that it's fair for me to be blocked, because I haven't used the source again, and my serious attempt to fix the issue went ignored.
Decline reason:
Making an effort to change a consensus does not automatically mean that it will be accepted. If it is not accepted, then you need to live with that even if you think it is wrong- and expect to be blocked as disruptive should you edit against consensus anyway. This request does not convince me that your problematic behavior will not resume, so I am declining it. I think you are lucky it was only a week. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2023 (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.
Planespotters, for real
@ZLEA,@AndyTheGrump,@Canterbury Tail,@Steelpillow- I made a serious attempt to change the consensus, as ZLEA stated at ANI. The contents of my argument went ignored. I have nothing personal against any of you. However, your eagerness to block me over trying to change the consensus is weird- can I not try to change a flawed consensus? Steelpillow, my problem with your statements is this: teh various arguements made against Planespotters as a source are simply false, and easily proven so. I am not incompetent, but at risk of sounding like a dick, I am right. WP:PLANESPOTTERS also does fail WP:CON, this I am sure of. I am not attempting to flog any dead horses, I am only attempting to change a consensus that, though made in good faith, is flawed in several ways. I also have npot re-added Planespotters to any articles at all since it was brought to my attention again. Please, I mean nothing bad. I wish only to save a rather large, very useful source of information. Thank you. SurferSquall (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is quite frustrating, and rather sad, to see this happen in the first place. The arguements made against Planespotters as a reliable source are false, yet when argued that way, I am shut down. Why? Is it easier to throw WP links at me than to consider the truth? SurferSquall (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- The purpose of your talk page while blocked is to make a convincing unblock request. It is not to continue the behavior that got you blocked. So, stop that behavior, or your talk page access will be revoked, the length of the block will be increased, and you will also increase the chance of an indefinite topic ban from aviation, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- According to the block notification you wrote, this isn’t even what I was blocked for. You cannot change what the block is about after it has been given. I have not used Planespotters at all since it was brought to my attention again, and you act as though I have. How is it fair to give me a topic ban from aviation FOR TRYING TO CHANGE A CONSENSUS???? SurferSquall (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia’s rules allow me to make an argument to change a consensus. It is allowed. And others are supposed to…. read it at all in the first place. And consider what it says. And you have done neither of those two things. SurferSquall (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- The purpose of your talk page while blocked is to make a convincing unblock request. It is not to continue the behavior that got you blocked. So, stop that behavior, or your talk page access will be revoked, the length of the block will be increased, and you will also increase the chance of an indefinite topic ban from aviation, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- SurferSquall, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. And as a consequence of this, it sometimes becomes necessary to accept that regardless of one's own opinion over something, if enough other people disagree, the decision is going to go their way. This happens to us all sometimes. It's happened to me quite a lot. I generally don't like it. I usually still think I'm right, and other people are wrong, and over questions much more fundamental than whether a particular website should be used as a source or not. All the same, in order to achieve anything at all here, and in order to avoid pissing off more of the people more of the time than I do already, I know that purely on a practical level, shutting the f*** up about something is often tactically advantageous. And occasionally worthwhile for gaining a bit of perspective over whether whatever it is that I'm currently seeing a red mist over is actually that important. Often it isn't. Occasionally it is. Either way though, boneheaded insistence that I'm right has never done much to win any arguments. It rarely does, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, I guess, but allowing one of the aviation topics’ largest and most detailed sources go to waste is figuratively and literally an injustice SurferSquall (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- In this case it is important. A series of majorly flawed arguments has snowballed into the most flawed “consensus” I’ve run into over something, more so than a lot of serious real-life problems. It’s baffling that so many will willfully ignore the fact that their arguments are easily proven false. The companies’ own proprietor offered to do so. And it’s an injustice to Wikipedia in the sense that it’s the largest and most detailed source available anywhere for the information it contains. Deprecating it will only serve to further lower the quality of Wikipedia’s already depreciating aviation articles. It’s sad, above all else. Sad. SurferSquall (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I blocked you for disruptive editing in general, and I stand by that block. You used that source after knowing that consensus was that it does not meet Wikipedia’s specific definition of a reliable source. Instead, you chose to complain ad nauseum, wasting the precious volunteer time of other editors. Many sources that are useful and interesting in other contexts are not acceptable as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Blogs by amateur scholars, for example, are frequently fascinating and often quite informative, and may well contain clues or even citations to actually reliable sources. Even so, these blogs are not acceptable as references on Wikipedia. You have been tendentious for quite a while on this issue. You really ought to take the excellent advice at Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, but I suspect you won't, though I hope you do. Don't worry. Wikipedia's coverage of aviation topics will be just fine without you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am well permitted by Wikipedia’s own rules to state the fact that it is a reliable source. As I’ve said numerous times the consensus, no matter how many people agree with it, is false; STILL none of you will prove it is an unreliable source, and all of my arguments for it STILL went ignored. And, no, I’m not sure the aviation topic will be fine- well over a hundred articles cite Planespotters, the majority of them several times. SurferSquall (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- I blocked you for disruptive editing in general, and I stand by that block. You used that source after knowing that consensus was that it does not meet Wikipedia’s specific definition of a reliable source. Instead, you chose to complain ad nauseum, wasting the precious volunteer time of other editors. Many sources that are useful and interesting in other contexts are not acceptable as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Blogs by amateur scholars, for example, are frequently fascinating and often quite informative, and may well contain clues or even citations to actually reliable sources. Even so, these blogs are not acceptable as references on Wikipedia. You have been tendentious for quite a while on this issue. You really ought to take the excellent advice at Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, but I suspect you won't, though I hope you do. Don't worry. Wikipedia's coverage of aviation topics will be just fine without you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- SurferSquall, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. And as a consequence of this, it sometimes becomes necessary to accept that regardless of one's own opinion over something, if enough other people disagree, the decision is going to go their way. This happens to us all sometimes. It's happened to me quite a lot. I generally don't like it. I usually still think I'm right, and other people are wrong, and over questions much more fundamental than whether a particular website should be used as a source or not. All the same, in order to achieve anything at all here, and in order to avoid pissing off more of the people more of the time than I do already, I know that purely on a practical level, shutting the f*** up about something is often tactically advantageous. And occasionally worthwhile for gaining a bit of perspective over whether whatever it is that I'm currently seeing a red mist over is actually that important. Often it isn't. Occasionally it is. Either way though, boneheaded insistence that I'm right has never done much to win any arguments. It rarely does, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- @SurferSquall: The block is not about planespotters.net, it is about your disruptive behaviour. I'd seriously recommend a voluntary topic ban (including right here!), it's something I have imposed on myself on the odd occasion and it worked well for me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- And yet you still will not specify how exactly advocating for a perfectly good source is “disruptive behavior”. SurferSquall (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)