Hi. You have been deleting Belfast as a destination which Virgin Atlantic serves from the Orlando International Airport page. However, if you check Virgin's website you will see that Virgin is serving MCO/BFS on Sundays over the European summer 2022 period. For example Sun Jul 10, VS162 will depart MCO at 17:40 arriving non stop at Belfast next day at 6:25am on Airbus 330. Please can you not continue to delete? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.96.57 ( talk) 00:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi,

Sorry for the deletion. I checked Virgin's website and it seems like the route only runs very specific days and not for long. I checked a bunch of dates but missed the one it was actually operating, so that's my bad. I only deleted it off of MCO because another user deleted it off of BFS's page. I am not "continuing to delete," I only removed it off of one page. ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 18:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)) reply

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Icelandair, 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. Nguyen QuocTrung ( talk) 07:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Usually single deliveries (unless it’s a major delivery like a new aircraft type) do not get any articles or sources written about them, and the general source for the Icelandair fleet isn’t updated when new planes are delivered. My bad for not including a source, but there were pretty much none that existed. Have a good one! VenFlyer98 ( talk) 05:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Super Monkey Ball Banana Mania.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yeeno ( talk) 🍁 17:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Arajet.webp. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{ OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 14:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi. Someone keeps re-adding that United is resuming flights to Prague and Stockholm from Newark on May 25, 2023 but did not provide a source. They keep insisting that the flight is bookable on the airline’s website. Can you take a look and confirm? Thanks! Rzxz0839 ( talk) 08:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Rzxz0839: Hey, just took a look and yup UA shows both routes as nonstop resuming 5/25/23. EWR-ARN with a 757-200 and EWR-PRG with a 767-300. Thing is, you know the rules of Wikipedia, anything getting added needs a source, and the user saying “I talked to UA on Twitter” or using their booking engine isn’t independent/good enough. Not sure how to handle this. I would personally remove it until a source comes out, but that’s just me. ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 17:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)) reply

Please do not change edits showing Cancun, San Francisco and Las Vegas in the JetBlue section. All 3 flights have been cut from future scheduling and are done flying. Source: The Points Guy. West Palm Beach is also seasonal only. Saturnpilot ( talk) 18:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Saturnpilot: Thanks for the message. However, the way Wikipedia works is you need a source for everything and it would be nice to explain edits. If you just remove something without explaining it, it’s going to be reverted. A simple “flights are removed from schedule” or something like “no longer bookable” is all you have to do. Additionally, no one seems to bother with changing it on the other airport’s pages (removing BDL from Cancun’s page, for example). You cannot say “don’t remove it” when you don’t initially provide a reason. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 23:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Clutter? The flag icons are found on numerous other airport articles in similar boxes. They are colorful and are hardly clutter. I won't fight with you about it but I think you are dead wrong. Bgreatarrington ( talk) 15:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello,

While I appreciate the response, I didn’t revert a single one of your edits. Think you clicked the wrong name. Thank you! VenFlyer98 ( talk) 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi VenFlyer98. I am new to editing airline destination maps; can you please give me a link as to what was previously discussed regarding the etiquette on this? As you may have noticed recently, I added two new destinations on the Rhode Island T.F. Green International Airport destinations map (which already had confirmed verifiable citations and sources); I see that map has now been removed altogether citing redundancy. I've also noticed that no Wikipedia articles covering major United States airports had any destination maps – a trend I was trying to break for the sake of reader convenience when I started creating a new destinations map for New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport. Are all destination maps eventually going to be removed due to redundancy?

Although there is a detailed list of airlines and nonstop destinations on every page, I firmly believe that the average reader should also have a choice of seeing a geographic map to find out if their desired city can be reached from a particular airport. It's also faster and easier to find this out on a map rather than reading a long list to spot their desired city (that's just my opinion), so I was trying to improve the page from a reader's standpoint. If the maps take up too much space in the article, it can always been hidden by clicking on the "hide" button at the top right. The destinations for Rhode Island T.F. Green Airport in particular are constantly fluctuating; they now have 32 nonstop destinations compared to just 17 nonstop destinations in 2017 (please see the link below). https://www.flyri.com/blog/rhode-island-t-f-green-international-airport-routes-update/ Geometric11 ( talk) 03:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I’ve dug around the talk archives over at WP:AIRPORT and over the years, there hasn’t seem to be a firm conclusion on how to handle maps, thus several users started to remove them. There also seemed to be some agreement between users that large airports (JFK for example) shouldn’t have destination maps as the maps would get pretty cluttered (look at all the regional destinations for an airport like JFK or LGA that are close together). However, as mentioned there doesn’t seem to have been a firm conclusion or any mention of it in the Wiki Project’s page content section, so I wouldn’t be opposed to a new talk conversation over there to bring the topic back up. Honestly, I’m indifferent to maps but as I said, seems no one has had a definitive answer yet. I’ve only been removing them since a few others have, but like I said I may just open a talk conversation over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports just to see if we can finally reach a conclusion.

( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 19:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)) reply

Hi! I saw you removed a map from my edit as well. Thanks for the clarification. I like the maps, but agree they can be a bit cluttered. Is there still a discussion over at the WikiProject?

I'm also curious to see what conclusion there is. It would be cool to have maps that are interactive. Are they switching to destinations maps like the one for CMH?

A2,304 ( talk) 14:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey @ A2,304:,

Not sure. Don't think a discussion has ever happened again (I kind of forgot about making one, this original topic is from over a year ago), but would still love one since there still isn't really any guidelines. Most editors remove them since in general, most editors seem to be against them, but most of the discussions are reaching a few years old, so I'm still supportive of a new one.

Thanks! VenFlyer98 ( talk) 22:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi. Please explain why these edits were reverted on talk page prior to changing back. These edits were made to tighten article, fix incorrect name, and spell out abbreviations in main space that is consistent with manual of style. Thanks. Semper fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 04:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi User:FieldMarine,

That’s my bad, it’s an airline’s destination page so abbreviations should be spelled out. Got confused since as I’m sure you saw, your edits on several airport pages got reverted for spelling out abbreviations (airport pages are fine with just the 2 letters for a country or state) and the way the American Eagle destinations table is laid out made me think it should be the same way when it shouldn’t. In fact, I’m not sure why it’s even laid out that way, it should be in table in style similar to List of United Express destinations or List of Delta Connection destinations. Proper table layouts are also given at WP:ALD so no idea why American Eagle’s page has its table laid out like that. But ignore my revert, shouldn’t have done it. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 10:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks VenFlyer98, I appreciate you getting back to me and your comments. I'll check out my prior edits. IMHO, it is easier for international readers to have locations spelled out. I understand if the table has set columns and the abbreviation helps maintain space formatting, but this table does not have that. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 12:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

No problem, I get where you’re coming from and I’m not disagreeing. Have a good one! VenFlyer98 ( talk) 17:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey I noticed you edit Newark Airport a lot, and I have just nominated it for GA for the second time so if you think I can expand or improve anything, or would like to do it with me let me know. Jibreel23 ( talk) 14:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Alright, will do if I notice anything. I notice you’re always editing it and I think you do a great job with it so I’d say it’s fine for now! VenFlyer98 ( talk) 18:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Alright thanks, appreciate it bro. Jibreel23 ( talk) 21:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi VenFlyer98

I see that you mistakenly edited American's destination page. It appears you missed the web article's part where it says this, "And unfortunately, the launch of flight services between Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and Shanghai Pudong International Airport will also be pushed to October 29th"

Here is the URL of the article: https://simpleflying.com/american-airlines-nonstop-shanghai-flights

Thanks! Joelaviacion1 ( talk) 08:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I did miss it. However, a few things to note: I can't find any other article that mentions the SEA-PVG flight, nor is the flight even bookable on AA's website (all flighsts show up as going SEA-DFW-PVG), as well as SEA never being added to the PVG page for AA. With that in mind, I'm not sure how accurate the article is, especially since it says all other flights to China are currently paused.

Thanks! ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 02:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)) reply

Ven,

I notice you keep deleting the ICAO references for NPA. NPA is the same company as Ravn Alaska. It says so right in the body of both pages. Every airline can only have one two and three IATA code (7H and RVF). This means it has the same call sign (RavnFlight). Thank you. Flyalaska21 ( talk) 20:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I understand they're owned by the same company, but that does not mean the codes are the same or the callsigns are the same. If they treat Northern Pacific has a separate subsidiary, it may have different codes. Any websites that list airline codes for NP currently do not list what the airline's codes are, being owned by the same company does not matter. Everything added to Wikipedia needs a source, hence why I've been removing the codes, if that's understandable.

Thanks! ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 23:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)) reply

Ven,

It is more than they are owned by the same company, they are the same company with one AOC, one IATA code, one PSS, one ICAO code... What proof do you want to stop makeing these edits? You can search now and see 757 flights from ONT to LAS on Fridays and returning on Sundays that show the N logo and the Ravn Alaska name. Flyalaska21 ( talk) 20:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry I forgot to add that those LAS flights start after June 1. Flyalaska21 ( talk) 20:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Companies can switch codes around if they view it as a separate airline. Same applies to callsign, see an airline such as ITA Airways, same IATA code as Alitalia, but different callsign. You can't assume the codes are the same, and as I said, any website that lists airline codes currently do not have any codes listed for Northern Pacific. I can spin it right around and say what proof do you have aside from saying "they are owned by the same company"? I'm not changing the edits because I want to, but because of Wikipedia:Verifiability, rules are you need to source information that is added. When the airline gets closer to launching operations, websites should list their codes. If you can't verify the edits, they get removed, that's the rules on Wikipedia. Not trying to edit war or anything. Additionally, I can't find any recent flights the airline has done, as you stated. Any flights I do find simply use the plane's registration as the callsign when I search by recent flights their 757s have flown.

Thank you! ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 23:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)) reply

You only find the N number on recently flown flights because ops specs have not been issued yet. Again, I politely ask, what proof will you accept to stop inappropriately editing our company's page. I don't want an edit war either. I know for a fact as to what I have entered to be true, and I am not "assuming" anything. Thank you. Flyalaska21 ( talk) 08:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

If they haven't been issued yet, then don't include it without a source. We can add it later when a callsign is officially issued. Again, going to point to Wikipedia:Verifiability, it is not inappropriate editing. If the callsign is the same great, when ops start I'm sure they'll be sources that list it and there you go, but you need to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability, if you work for the company that necessarily isn't good enough (see WP:SPS). This is just how Wikipedia works. Sorry to make you think it's "inappropriate editing," but if you don't have a VERIFIABLE source, it gets reverted. Again, Wikipedia:Verifiability has everything on that.

Also as for flights not starting yet, going to point over to WP:CRYSTAL, again need a verifiable source for everything. Finally, as it sounds like you do work for NP, I'll link to Wikipedia:BFAQ (specifically WP:BFAQ#EDIT).

Thank you ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 22:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)) reply

I could easily find a dozen airlines without references for callsigns. Please take some time, and delete all of those airlines for having unreferenced call signs. You are not serving anyone by continuing to edit our page without any knowledge. You are also applying a standard to us that you are not applying to every other airline in the world. Please, Please stop. Thank you. Flyalaska21 ( talk) 23:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Because those airlines have sources you can go to. If I want, I can go to most airlines on Wikipedia and find a source for their callsign. There are other, reputable websites that list what those callsigns are. There is no site I can find that list's Northern Pacific's callsign. Even if sources aren't included directly on the page for another airline, there are websites that list them to back it up. Northern Pacific does not have this. When flights get closer to launching, there will be sites. This is on top of some airlines including sources, such as Lynx Air or Norse Atlantic UK, and sources are typically used on the page with newer airlines. I'm not trying to do anything in particular, but follow how Wikipedia works. You need to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability and again, since you seem to work for Northern Pacific, there are rules at WP:BFAQ#RULES.

At this point if it's added back, I'll probably just throw on a citation needed tag so this does not continue any longer. Not trying to start anything, just trying to enforce the fact everything added to Wikipedia needs to be backed with a verifiable source, even if the source itself is not on the page.

( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 04:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)) reply

I'll give a little more background here, Jellywings19 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (the master account of Andreweys) is not just blocked, they are banned, which means that anyone can revert their edits, solely for that reason ( WP:BANREVERT). Jellywings19 is an LTA and their changes include some good content, and then some bad content mixed in with it. Sorting the good from the bad individually would take a good deal more effort than they deserve, and other LTAs use this tactic purely to waste everyone's time by trying to force them to comb through every last edit, hence the mass reversion. Of course, any user in good standing (such as yourself) is welcome to reinstate anything good from those edits. Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 11:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Ah, was unaware it was a mass reversion. Just reverted your edit since the edit happened to be one of the actually “good” edit. I should’ve assumed it was a mass revert.

( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 18:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)) reply

Hi

why did you arbitrarly removed referenced routes from Milan Malpensa Airport? the routes were already operated in summer 22, but were improperly removed, reson why were recently re-added. Given that, a resumal date it is NOT needed. Anyway, if there is no way to avoid them, they are already published on Milan malpensa official website, if needed I will re-add. Please do not arbitrarly remove.
Riktetta ( talk) 15:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi,

First I did not know these were already flown from Milan. On top of this, the routes are not on the page for Cagliari Elmas Airport. Additionally, what the airport's page says is irrelevant as sources must be independent (says when you edit at the top of the page) which means the source cannot be from the airline or airport itself. Finally, as I mentioned in my edit summary, the source does not list the EXACT date the routes start/resume which is necessary, it only lists routes launching from MXP in the summer.

Thanks, ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 20:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)) reply

Hi

1)"the routes are not on the page for Cagliari Elmas Airport. " that does not authomatically mean that the routes do not exists.

2)"what the airport's page says is irrelevant as sources must be independent (says when you edit at the top of the page) which means the source cannot be from the airline or airport itself" these info regards charters, that are not advertised for obvious reasons. If this principle have to be kept, thus it is not worthy to list charters.

3)"the source does not list the EXACT date the routes start/resume which is necessary, it only lists routes launching from MXP in the summer." again, it is NOT a launching, routes were already operated but improperly removed (for both). It is not needed to have a new date for seasonal/charters services.

anyway, instead of arbitrarly remove (because, again, this is what you did) you can place the "citation needed" tag. Routes are established, took place and will take place again. Removing them it is a vandalism.

regards Riktetta ( talk) 06:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I would've placed a cn tag if I was to do it again. It is not vandalism because the source you are providing is not independent. Charters are already a bit confusing to list, WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT states to only list regular charters, as I'm assuming that's what these routes are, they need to follow the rules of how other routes are referenced. there are plenty of charter announcements that have had independent sources on other airport pages.

It also doesn't matter if the route is new or a resumption. You included a resumption date, so the source must show the date to be verifiable. The source did not, and instead only mentions "summer." While the other airport page doesn't matter, it's also just nice to edit it's page too with the routes so the pages aren't mismatched. Again, this is not vandalism if your source cannot verify the dates you are writing. That's all verifiability explained at WP:VERIFY.

Thank you!

( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 18:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)) reply

My reasoning behind splitting these airline fleets into separate articles is that It already exists for several airlines- see United, American, Delta, Air Canada, Lufthansa, BA, Emirates, Etihad, Qantas, Air India, ETC. I do not believe there is any reason not for ANA, JAL, Korean, Asiana and Qatar to have their own fleet articles as well. All five of those airlines have a larger fleet than Etihad, which has its own article. SurferSquall ( talk) 04:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Again, no consensus. See talk page for Qatar Airways as an example. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 23:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Nobody seems to want to come to a consensus. I believe it would most make sense to do it the way those other airline article have been done. SurferSquall ( talk) 03:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Might I ask why you are against having separate pages? SurferSquall ( talk) 03:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not specifically, but there needs to be a consensus. I don't think "nobody seems to want to come to a consensus," it's only been a few days and a consensus isn't just going to happen in a few days. Give it time. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 00:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Good morning! Wanted to discuss the Red Way/JSX inclusion on the destination lists at BNA. Even though they sell individual seats and operated on a schedule, JSX and Red Way are still public charter airlines legally speaking (from JSX: "Flights are public charters sold by JetSuiteX, Inc...." and Red Way: "Flights are public charters sold by Red Way acting as a Sales Agent on behalf of GlobalX Air Tours, LLC..."). I'm a little less concerned about Red Way, as they appear to at least use the public terminal, however JSX appears to use FBOs instead of the public terminal. Perhaps we find a middle ground here and label them as Charter in the table, which is an acceptable thing to do per the WP:Airports style guide. nf utvol ( talk) 13:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

In the interest of transparency and public comment, moving this to the BNA talk page. Thanks! nf utvol ( talk) 13:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Understood, discussion moving over there. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 14:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I didn't want to air this out on the BNA talk page, but I'm a little frustrated with your rapid fire reversions of good faith, sourced edits. I made the edits based on the WP:SILENCE principle, as I tagged them as charter airlines over 2 months after my last post on the talk page, and you had , by my reading, not addressed the points I had raised. The second source of frustration is that in your first reversion, you said they weren't sourced (which you were right to do, I should have provided sources for the 2 of the 3 that didn't have the charter status already addressed in their existing sources). I added sources, as asked, and you reverted it again, seemingly moving the goal post. You may feel like these airlines don't operate as charters, but to be frank the onus is on you now to provide sources that state otherwise. Simply stating that their status as Part 135 charter airlines is irrelevant is confusing at best, and your seemingly arbitrary assertion that they aren't really charter airlines because they share some operational traits with traditional airlines is getting into WP:NOR territory.

If you really disagree with this as strongly as you appear to, I think that instead of reverting sourced edits it would have been more appropriate to do what I did, and take the conversation to the Wikiproject Aviation talk page for some additional opinions, or alternatively submit a Request for Comment. Reverting sourced, verifiable edits only leads to frustration from other users, and the risk of an edit war starting, and no one wants either of those! nf utvol ( talk) 00:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Nfutvol: Understood, and maybe I am in the wrong. I totally agree with taking it to the talk page, and I didn't mean to move any kind of goal posts. BNA's page listed them without the charter tag for a while, so I was thinking along the lines of keep them removed until a consensus is reached. Happy to have it on the project's page, I just didn't want uneven pages with only BNA listing those destinations as charters when all the other ones weren't. Let's keep the discussion in the project so it isn't uneven across BNA/my talk page/and the project and is kept in one place. Guess I was just thinking backwards, as in keep it as it was until consensus. Hoping for no hard feelings! We're all in this for making sure Wikipedia has the most accurate information! VenFlyer98 ( talk) 20:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

EDIT: Whoops, just saw your note on the BNA page. Disregard the last edit that I just removed!!! nf utvol ( talk) 12:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Multiple IPs continue to add same unsourced info to this page. Time for protection. Jz0610 ( talk) 17:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jz0610: Would agree. I’m sure you also saw one of them didn’t exactly have the kindest words to say to me (hence one of my reverts was for WP:PA). Seems they had the similar words to say to you on your talk page as well. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 08:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! this is the IP user (you'll know who I am) In the end, it is probably better that you removed SWA's seasonal FLL resumption, because now on MacArthur Airport's FB it says that FLL is now resuming 1/6/24 instead of 11/25/23 and then I looked on SWA schedule for 1/6 and FLL is gone from ISP destinations, completely! That's unbelievable! It used to be 2x daily! I think we can all agree that SWA betrayed ISP! But enough of my venting! Sorry about my editing mistake! I'm a rookie to editing on wiki, and I've seen so much unsourced stuff that I guess I thought not everything needed a source. Sorry again about my mistake. 67.80.134.47 ( talk) 19:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

You’re good, just make sure things have sources, like I said check out WP:VERIFY, and yes as a Long Islander I haven’t been thrilled with SWA at ISP haha.

Thanks! VenFlyer98 ( talk) 21:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry getting back to you so late, I had received a ban that was supposed last for a year or two but it must've been repealed or something.

Anyway, hopefully Breeze can pick things up at ISP, also I'll keep looking for SWA flights to FLL if there's any news about that 67.80.134.47 ( talk) 21:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yea no problem, just make sure it's from a reliable source. Breeze recently extended the ORF route from ISP back to year-round so there's that.

Also reverted your edits about the Southwest bases, you can see here they are not full bases like the other airports: https://careers.southwestair.com/flight-attendants

Just letting you know why that was reverted so you're aware. ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 22:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)) reply

All good. Didn't realize wasn't supposed to list it since it was still a type of base. Do you think there should be a separate satellite base parameter or is that a waste of space? 67.80.134.47 ( talk) 10:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ehhh, probably a waste of space since it isn’t a “true” base and would apply to very few airlines. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 19:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree 67.80.134.47 ( talk) 14:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I noticed you reverted my edit - was their ever official consensus on whether to classify bases with focus-city style operations (e.g.: WN at MCO) as Operating Bases, or Focus Cities? WN's operations in MCO are the definition of how a focus city operates - the question is if that supersedes that being a base or not. For the purposes of the travelling public, I would argue that an airport being known as a focus city is more useful than being an operating base. I scanned WP Airports, but couldn't find anything about this topic. Avgeek2863 ( talk) 01:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Avgeek2863: Operating Base was added as a field to the infobox. Additionally, Southwest’s MCO ops definitely fit the definition of a base more, they have pilots and flight attendants based at MCO and it matches the actual Southwest page itself better that lists bases. Additionally, on pages like BDL, Breeze has a base, the article outright says Breeze opened a base with a reference in the history section, so go with what is referenced in that case. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 16:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I checked the Frontier schedule and ISP-RSW resumes November 16, but other than seeing that the flight is bookable, there is no source. Just putting it out there in case you find a source, but either way, RSW is coming back 67.80.134.47 ( talk) 14:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Alright, I’ll keep a lookout, thanks. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 17:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

No problem, just trying to help make wiki pages complete 67.80.134.47 ( talk) 17:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

How funny, I just saw your edit when I was about to let you know I saw the FB post! 67.80.134.47 ( talk) 02:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey, I started a discussion on the topic we have a different opinion about. Why don't you state your arguments there instead of reverting again? That's the normal way in these cases. See WP:EW WikiPate ( talk) 22:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ WikiPate:,

First of all, I did respond on the Ryanair talk page. I said there was no consensus since you reverted my edit claiming “there was no opposition on the talk page,” but you didn’t even wait 2 days before reverting. You didn’t notify me or anyone else so how was I supposed to know you made a topic on the talk page? No one was alerted and you waited less then 2 days, of course there was no opposition because no one responded yet. Additionally, as I stated there was no consensus. The page has had the individual operators listed for well over a year, changing it because it’s “easier to edit” isn’t really a valid argument. Perhaps wait for more people to reply or open a discussion where more can see it like at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Aviation. I also don’t see how 1 revert is considered edit warring, especially after I responded to the talk page. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 00:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I wonder I wasn't notified via e-mail about your reply on the Ryanair talk page. From other Wikipedia discussions I saw 24 hours are a normal waiting time and I waited longer than that. Hm users that are interested in discussing topics have the according talk pages of articles in their watch list.

Both of the current Fleet tables of Easyjet and Ryanair you stated are factually wrong. So I wonder if even an experienced user does not state the figures in the Fleet table correctly, who else is going to do so in the future.

Even as you also removed my note to help calculating the amount of unfullfilled orders. WikiPate ( talk) 10:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I updated them to make them accurate. I like going on fleet pages every so often and making sure they’re good. It also helps that a lot of the other operators (especially in the case of Ryanair) don’t have many orders left so it should be pretty simple to keep up to date, especially with the sources. Just think some users forget to change some numbers, but that can happen on any fleet page and is an easy fix. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 03:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I mean current figures that you stated in the Fleet tables in both the Ryanair and Easyjet article are incorrect.

That made me wonder who will take care that the figures will be correct in the future. WikiPate ( talk) 18:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

People will take care of it, and what do you mean current figures are incorrect? I went through and updated them based on the provided references and lined them up with their operator’s fleet tables. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 00:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

In both fleet tables the total amount of unfulfilled orders is incorrect based on the figures stated above. In the Ryanair fleet table the amount of unfulfilled orders of the MAX200 is incorrect as the total order ever made is 210. WikiPate ( talk) 20:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

In the Ryanair fleet table the total amount of planes in service is also incorrect based on the figures stated in the column above. WikiPate ( talk) 20:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

So how, exactly, is it wrong? It matches the included airfleets reference, a reference that you put a hidden note with saying to make sure the table accurately matched it. Order number was wrong, someone must of changed it so I went in and fixed it. But for active aircraft, it matches the sources included so I’m not sure how that’s wrong. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The Ryanair planes in service:

29+1+410+123 does not equal the total amount of 562.

The unfulfilled Easyjet orders:

132+33 does not equal the total amount of 161. WikiPate ( talk) 15:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, all fixed. Just to point out though, instead of responding on my talk page about how tables are wrong, you could just fix them yourself if you know the numbers are incorrect. Not sure how telling me helps. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 07:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey, do you have a reference that Arajet has first-class seats in its aircraft? Which airline ordered a seat layout of Economy and first-class seats for the Boeing 737 MAX 8? Otherwise that statement would be unsourced. WikiPate ( talk) 22:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ WikiPate:,

First of all, you referenced PlaneSpotters in your edit. Over at, Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Aviation, there was another discussion about using PlaneSpotters as a source, and it was pretty much agreed upon that it’s unreliable (although I don’t necessarily agree with that).

Here’s 1 source mentioning the seat layout: https://simpleflying.com/flight-review-arajet-boeing-737-economy-class-mexico-city-santo-domingo/

The fleet was originally intended for Russian Ural Airlines, but like most 737 MAXs destined to Russian airlines, other airlines picked the planes up including Arajet, the planes retained the same interior configuration and feature 8 first class recliner seats: https://aviation.direct/en/arajet-neuer-b737-max-billigflieger-fuer-die-domrep VenFlyer98 ( talk) 01:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hm,

as Planespotters is said to be unreliable I wonder it is still used and referenced for quite a number of Fleet tables. If there were a consensus of not using Planespotters, it would have been banned to be used on Wikipedia and a better reference would have been agreed on. From my experiences, Planespotters has sufficiently good data as the Airbus Orders&Deliveries Document.

Your stated Simpleflying and aviation.direct references do not confirm, that those are First Class seats. The references do not name the type of the seats at all.

The Wiki page of Ural airlines states, that the airline has Business class seats in its aircraft but not First class.

I googled if Ural Airlines intended to use First class seats on their 737 MAX planes, but no search result confirms that.

I asked the user who stated the First class seats in the Arajet article, and the user comfirmed not having a reference.

Seatmaps.com also suggests that the airline offers its cabin in (Premium) Econonmy.

Arajet itself in its booking process calls those seats just "Wide Seats".

I'm still in favor of Premium Economy, but could find a compromise on Business class. It's simply not First class. WikiPate ( talk) 10:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Like I said, I don’t agree with the PlaneSpotters consensus and it’s continuing to be used across numerous articles despite the discussion, so no idea where that will end up.

You can find trip reports of Arajet online on places like YouTube, including ones in the seats upfront, and they’re pretty much the same seats that American uses in their first class. Arajet sells them as Premium I believe, and later MAX deliveries will have a different all-economy seat layout. The level of service is pretty much the same as economy I believe, but since Arajet ended up with the seats they sell them essentially as extra leg room or upgrades. The reason I was calling them First class is because they are essentially first class seats in a 2-2 layout, compared to most typical Premium Economy seats which are usually just Economy with extra leg room. The level of service isn’t quite First Class, however, so perhaps labeling it as such isn’t correct. It’s a weird situation. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 02:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, you removed my edit without looking for a source to add to it first. I believe you are probably more talented than me so maybe you could make my source work (I couldn’t get it to go onto the page) https://wieck-swa-production.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/page-3b00a21770a21c5c30a52599d18aed48/attachment/25b5ee8cfa71b62a200579ff95f4bda121efee45 67.80.134.47 ( talk) 13:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I removed it because as I’ve said before on the numerous other times I’ve reverted your edits, you need an inline source ( WP:IC) to support your edits which you did not include. This is all a part of WP:V, specifically WP:BURDEN.

As for the link you provided, it’s preferred to use independent sources not from the airline or airport. Additionally, I’d say it’s fine to leave the page alone since Southwest’s TPA-ISP flights seem to have only been suspended a bit and run all the way through the end of the booking schedule (April) instead of March like the link you provided said, so more than likely it seems to be returning as a year-round route. Finally, you mentioned how I removed it without looking for a source first. Again, WP:BURDEN, which states “Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.” Please make sure you give WP:V a read.

Thank you, ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 20:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)) reply

You really think that a source from 2018 is still relevant, despite air traffic nearly coming to a standstill during COVID-lockdowns? The Banner  talk 23:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ The Banner: Hi,

Which source are we talking about here? I'm assuming it's all the ones on the AMS page that say archived 2018. Well:

-The KLM one, despite saying 2018, takes you to a flight status page where you can verify all current flight schedules as of the current date (today's date). So despite what the source details say, it is up to date.

-Same thing for the Kenya Airways one. Despite the 2018 date in the source details, it takes you to their current website with up to date information.

-Same once again for JetBlue. It takes you to their current route map.

If you actually click on the sources, you'll see despite what they say about being archived in 2018, the links take you to the current version of all of these airlines destinations/route map pages which verify the information in the table. Just seems to be a problem with the citations details, but the links are current, so that's something that can be changed.

Not sure if you're trying to accuse me of thinking they're outdated when if you click on them, you'd see they aren't.

Thank you! ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 04:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)) reply

At least you improved the sources. The Banner  talk 09:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Only one that really needed it was Korean since that just linked to the Korean homepage and definitely looks like the old link was outdated. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 20:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply

You reverted my edit on the JFK article that added JFK to Vegas as a seasonal route for AA. AA does run it seasonally around peak times and during CES. 38.140.191.157 ( talk) 19:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I reverted it because the route got cut several years ago and is not a current route. AA does not fly JFK-LAS seasonally anymore. CES is basically an ad-hoc/irregular flight so it does not get included in tables. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 23:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply

CLT-MAD is still year-round. The Charlotte Observer piece that referenced the new Vancouver flight states "In April, for instance, the airline said it was offering year-round flights from Charlotte to Madrid on a route that previously had been limited to seasonal summer travel," but does not mention that the flight is now seasonal. Mstep081 ( talk) 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Msteo081:,

Realized this, just read the article wrong. All fixed now. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 16:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I missed the news that Red Way disbanded. Caleb M1 ( talk) 19:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello. I noticed your edit about converting 21km2 to 2,104 hectares. Dont have a problem with that whatsoever. I believe it should be to the precise hectare. However, a lot of users on Wikipedia do the roundings method, i.e. 2,104 hectares would be rounded out to 2,100 hectares when the acreage is 5,000 acres, 6,000 acres, etc. The Laguardia Airport article has 680 acres=280 hectares. It is 275 hectares. A lot of my airport additions of that nature have been rounded off in that situation, and I dont change it back. I was blocked 11 years ago because I got into edit wars with someone. Involved Harry Reid Intl Airport. I changed 2,800 acres=1,133 ha, was changed back to 1,100 ha. There should be ground rules on roundings on Wikipedia to make it more consistent. What are your thoughts on this? You have a great day. Im an ex-New Yorker myself. Theairportman33531 ( talk) 13:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Theairportman33531:,

Mainly just did my edit for consistency. I agree, there should be a consistent unit used across all pages. I really don’t edit this kind of content often, so I’m not really sure what to do in this case. I simply edited it for consistency with the unit and unit label. Perhaps creating a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports would be your best option.

Have a good one! VenFlyer98 ( talk) 19:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I know that you know that Savannah is returning as you referenced that richmond is no longer bookable on the breeze website and uses that as your source. You can see that Savannah is now bookable. I have added a source so that you don't take it down again, but if you really think it is so necessary for there to be a source beyond the airline website for something that is obviously true, just find it yourself. Sources for regular text is one thing, airlines routes are hard to find sources for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeRye ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ OrangeRye:,

I mentioned it when removing Richmond as there never really is articles when airlines stop flying certain routes. However, when airlines add routes, you need to include a source. This is all WP:V. Additionally, you’ll see the top of the page when editing says to use independent sources and not the airline/airport. Finally, the source you included doesn’t mention the route at all and only other Florida routes. All information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, again this is WP:V.

Thank you! ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 00:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)) reply

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Bradley International Airport, you may be blocked from editing. FYI, Delta operates seasonal Connection service on CRJ-900's on Endeavor Air from Minneapolis-St. Paul to Hartford, especially on weekends. Please see WP:V. Additionally, please try to avoid using bare URLs as references. See WP:IC for more information. Thank you. Saturnpilot ( talk) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello @ Saturnpilot:,

While I do think it’s funny copying pre-written Twinkle messages, listening to your own message may be a good idea. WP:IC is a good place to start if you need help with adding sources to edits.

Thank you! ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 03:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)) reply

https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/norfolk/delta-to-resume-flights-from-norfolk-to-minneapolis-st-paul/ . Here is the link Anhelito26 ( talk) 09:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Anhelito26:

Ok, not sure why you’re telling me. Sources have to be included inline on the articles. See WP:IC.

Thank you! ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 15:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)) reply

The amount of orders for the MAX8, 9 and 10 in the Alaska Airlines article wasn't sourced, so I added a reference. No idea, why it was removed by you. Now it's unsourced again...

"Keep current source until there is updated" needs further explanation. WikiPate ( talk) 02:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ WikiPate:

Sources in the notes column were the sources, they listed the order numbers. Doesn’t need another ref on the actual number.

Thanks, ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 09:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)) reply

The ch-aviation ref and the Simpleflying ref don't confirm the stated order figures (15 MAX 8, 80 MAX9 and 102 MAX10) and that is okay for you? WikiPate ( talk) 16:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Of course not, I did not realize the current refs didn't match. Dug through the page history, the current refs were there for the original MAX order, then when they added more planes a new ref was added and got removed, going to re-add it. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 06:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Calling your attention to a discussion on the World2Fly Portugal talk page I started about an edit you made. Thanks! Avgeekamfot ( talk) 08:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi VenFlyer98, this was not just a discussion but a Request for Comments (RfC) posted at the Village Pump. It was advertised at multiple places, including WT:AIRPORTS and the talk pages of people who participated in previous RfCs on the topic. There was indeed a consensus, as indicated by the person who closed the RfC, ScottishFinnishRadish. You're right that my edit went against nearly every airport page on Wikipedia and broke WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. That's why I started an RfC on the tables and waited to see what the consensus would be. I believe that my edit was based on the consensus that was reached. Also, I did not merely remove the tables and leave it at that (the RfC closing summary states, There is not a consensus for wholesale removal of such tables), but replaced them with a summary of the airport's current operations. Sunnya343 ( talk) 02:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Sunnya343:,

Thanks for the comment, was hoping for a discussion. Just want to say I do completely understand the reasoning for the removal stated in the RfC, and I missed it being posted at WT:AIRPORTS, that’s my bad. I understand it was closed, but the RfC just seems to be a bunch of users either for or against it. Even the user that closed it wrote “should” which doesn’t seem 100% certain about a consensus. The main issue is you removed it from LAS’s page, but there are literally hundreds to thousands of airport articles with these tables. Why should LAS be the only one where it is removed? In my opinion, it should be none or all, and judging by the huge amount of articles, if it is indeed decided to remove them off ALL pages, it wouldn’t be no small task. There are many users in WP:AIRPORTS and WP:AVIATION who routinely edit these tables who were not involved in the RfC that are probably unaware it exists. I just think this needs to be an all or nothing type of situation for all airport pages. The user who closed the RfC seems to have basically said there were weak arguments for the supporting side of keeping the tables, and “the context could be provided in prose form” but that really doesn’t seem to be the same as “consensus is to remove them,” just “well it could be and it’s probably better” but it doesn’t read definite to me. Additionally, the consensus by the user says to keep it if there are independent sources. The LAS table does include plenty of independent sources for routes. Not all, but there are some and as some users have said, these tables can be improved. I just think there needs to be a more definite conclusion with more users aware of the conversation and if it does indeed need to be removed, that there aren’t some airports with tables and some without.

( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 06:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)) reply

Thank you for your civility. Actually there is no consensus to remove every table all at once, nor am I in favor of that. My understanding of the closing summary is that editors should look at each article individually and determine whether it is possible to provide independent, reliable, secondary sources for the table. I said in the RfC that if someone decides to remove a table, they should replace it with an alternative description of the airport's operations that is in line with Wikipedia policies. I like this approach because it requires an editor to put in some effort, as opposed to just going on a table deletion spree, which would be disruptive.

I think the word "should" is just a reflection of how I phrased the RfC question, Should airport articles include tables that display all the airlines that serve the airport and the cities they fly to? (I based it on an example at WP:RFCBRIEF.) Regarding the phrasing of other parts of the closing summary, I view it in the context of the first sentence, ...it is clear that there is consensus that airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when....

You're correct, there are some independent sources in the table, like for Alaska Airlines' upcoming route to PVR. However, all the references in the table, including the timetables, are primary sources, and the RfC says we need to find independent secondary sources to show the table meets WP:DUE. (Another editor actually taught me the difference between primary and secondary sources in that RfC. WP:PRIMARYNEWS was informative.) Secondary sources are unavailable for most of the routes, such as the ordinary flights on legacy carriers to their hubs. Also, there is the issue of the table going against certain parts of WP:NOT that I and other people mentioned in the RfC.

Would you be open to discussing your concerns with ScottishFinnishRadish? I think it would be useful for us to hear their perspective as well. At WP:CR it says, If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Sunnya343 ( talk) 18:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Sunnya343:

Thanks for the reply. I don’t really think discussing it with them is necessary, it does seem a consensus was reached so if you feel the table should be removed, go for it, although I’m sure other editors may have questions about it. I do want to point out that WP:PRIMARY does say “A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.” Wouldn’t a timetable meet this standard? If someone wanted to verify a route in the table and a timetable was a source, they could go to the source and see. Not 100% sure though, I’m obviously still not that experienced at Wikipedia. I’d rather not go on a big back-and-forth over this if the removal of tables is the consensus.

Thanks for your civility as well, always appreciated!

( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 01:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)) reply

Some other editors mentioned that as well in the RfC, like Reywas92 and Oknazevad. Other people such as JoelleJay countered that maintaining complete, current lists of destinations goes against policies like WP:NOTDB, while ActivelyDisinterested asked whether the information is WP:DUE if only primary sources are describing it.

Also (I hope it doesn't seem like I'm stalking; I have the LAS article on my watchlist), I noticed you added JSX as an airline with a base at LAS, but is there a source for that? It's listed as a base in the JSX article, but there's no reference, and I haven't been able to find one. Sunnya343 ( talk) 06:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Only thing I could find is a primary source, that being JSX's job page which lists crew bases: https://jsx.avature.net/careers/JobDetail/Direct-Entry-Captains-First-Officers-Multiple-Locations/127 VenFlyer98 ( talk) 01:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I think that works, thank you for finding one. I believe primary sources are acceptable in this context. I used them for some of the other bases as well, like Avelo's. Sunnya343 ( talk) 02:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC) reply

These two routes were served until 2011 according to this source from aeroroutes https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/231129-g4ns24 Lucthedog2 ( talk) 22:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, @ Lucthedog2:

A route starting nearly 13 years after its last flown is not really a resumption. A resumption is more or less if an airline temporarily suspends a route then restarts it. ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 22:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)) reply

ok thanks for the clarification. Lucthedog2 ( talk) 23:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

this person keeps adding unsourced content and he has already had his three warnings so could you help me ban him? here is his ip address for his talk page /info/en/?search=User_talk:70.179.24.102. Lucthedog2 ( talk) 15:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Lucthedog2:

Hi,

I’m not an administrator and don’t have any power to ban someone over editing.

Thank you ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 21:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)) reply

ok thanks i didn't know. Lucthedog2 ( talk) 03:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi I found your account by looking through aviation-related Wikipedia articles and seeing how you make necessary changes when parts of the article are incorrect or unsourced. If you wouldn’t mind, there is a user by the name of Luke848 who on Adelaide Airport has been adding flights to the list of airlines and destinations, which he claims will occur in the future but there is no valid source confirming a date of when these will begin, or if they will begin at all. Those who have tried to remove his edits have their edits reverted by him. He claims to work at the airport and have inside knowledge but there is no valid source. If you wouldn’t mind please take a look at the page and give your thoughts on the situation. Thanks SmileSmite83 ( talk) 14:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi SmileSmite83 ( talk · contribs),

Yes, according to WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, routes need exact dates, not just months and year. Additionally, since the user works at the airport, this is WP:BFAQ (users should NOT edit pages about their organizations). Hopefully this gets taken care of.

Thank you! ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 16:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)) reply

FYI, the User:Luke848 in question has also breached WP:3RR and is pretty much hasn't been WP:CIVIL per the Adelaide Airport edit logs. I don't have the time to fill a report, but if either you or any one watching the page can fill a WP:3RR within the 24 hours, it probably would be appreciated. Coastie43 ( talk) 12:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I will be bringing this to the article talk page. Think report is the way to go if that does not resolve anything. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 14:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey there @ VenFlyer98,

Thanks for all your continued work ensuring that the Long Island MacArthur Airport article remains compliant with WP:AIRPORT; I saw the edit log and noticed all your efforts! As an editor who primarily focuses on Long Island-related articles, I appreciate all your hard work! – Infrastorian ( talk) 18:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

No problem! As a Long Islander myself, I try to keep it accurate. Thanks for the kind words and also all the work you do on LI articles!

( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 21:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)) reply

United is apparently resuming this route on March 31, 2024 but the source is from the UA booking engine and not an independent source. Apparently UA is resuming all the pre-COVID US-China route despite Russian airspace restrictions. Jz0610 ( talk) 06:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The sources still need to be independent on the page. Keep that in mind despite what booking engines may say. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 19:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi VenFlyer98, You keep on changing the order of the fleet list on Ryanair, and me and other editors keep reverting you. Wikipedia works by consensus. There is a discussion on Talk:Ryanair – if you wish to convince other editors, you'll have to participate in the discussion. Regards, cagliost ( talk) 11:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello. User:Fredfurt removed the "charter" tags for Contour Airlines at the BWI and Middle Easter Georgia Airport pages saying that they are not charter. I have directed him to the BNA Airport talk page regarding the discussion. Thanks! Jz0610 ( talk) 07:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up, yep, seems like the right thing to do.

Thanks! ( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 22:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)) reply

Please do not remove source of a connection when that has started. It still source the connection itself. The Banner  talk 20:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Apologies for that. I usually leave the sources. However, the route is covered by the main ref in the third coloumn. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 18:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The IP failed to add a source saying the flight is year round and left it as it is and deleted my message at his talk page. He said to it up on google flights. Jz0610 ( talk) 15:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jz0610:

Just noticed it, I reverted initially since it wasn't changed on the CDG page, but I do see it's available year-round. Thanks for the fix. VenFlyer98 ( talk) 00:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We do not list options for US air carriers. Firm orders only. -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 20:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ RickyCourtney:

Ricky, not sure where this consensus comes from. WP:ALFC states "Orders are for new aircraft only, other aircraft to be acquired second-hand or leased should be mentioned in the Notes." New orders only in the tables, but mentioning information about leases or options is fine if it's in the notes column.

( VenFlyer98 ( talk) 05:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)) reply